<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2014-08-22</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Olivia Bottum</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Corrected markup.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A76202">
<STC T="W">B1368A</STC>
<STC T="C">R200772</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99896688</BIBNO>
<VID>135058</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1">
<PB REF="1">
<P>THE REDUCTION OF A DIGRESSOR OR <HI>Rich. Baxter</HI>'s REPLY TO M^r <HI>George Kendall</HI>'s DIGRESSION in his BOOK again&s;t M^r <HI>GOODWIN.</HI></P>
<BIBL>Job 42. 3.</BIBL>
<Q>Who is he that hideth Coun&s;el without Knowledge? Therefore have I uttered that I under&s;tood not, things too wonderfull for me, which I knew not.</Q>
<BIBL>Rom. 11. 33.</BIBL>
<Q>O the depth of the riches both of the wi&s;dom and knowledge of God! how un&s;earchable are his judgements, and his waios pa&s;t finding out!</Q>
<Q>Nam quomodo intellectu Deum capit homo, qui ip&s;um intellectum &s;uum, quo Eum vult capere, nondum capit?</Q>
<BIBL><HI>Augustin. de Trinitate,</HI> l. 5. c. 1.</BIBL>
<P><HI>LONDON,</HI> Printed by <HI>A. M.</HI> for <HI>Thomas &V;nderhill,</HI> at the Anchor and Bible in <HI>Pauls</HI> Church-yard near the little North-door, and <HI>Francis Tyton,</HI> at the three Daggers in Fleet&s;treet near <HI>Dun&s;tans</HI> Church. 1654.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 LANG="lat" TYPE="quotation">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>Nazianzen. <HI>Orat. 29. pag.</HI> 493. Edit. Morelli.</HEAD>
<OPENER><GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c.</OPENER>
<P>_Q&V;od &s;i in filii generatione &amp; Spiritus proce&s;&s;ione perve&s;ti|gand&acirc; curio&s;um te praebes, ego quo&abque; pari curio&s;itate tuam animae corpori&s;&abque; conjunctionem &amp; temperamentum inqui|ram: Quomodo pulvis es, &amp; Dei Imago? Quid e&s;t quod te moveat? aut quid quod moveatur? Quomodo idem movet &amp; movetur? Quomodo &s;en&s;us in eodem manet, &amp; externa attrahit? Quomodo mens in te manet, &amp; in alia mente &s;ermonem gignit? Quo modo cogitatio per &s;ermonem impertitur? Nondum majora profero; Quae caeli conver|&s;io? quis &s;yderum motus, &amp; ordo? aut modus? quae conjunctio aut di&s;tantia? qui maris termini? unde venti profluant? unde partim anni revolutiones, aut pluviarum effu&s;iones? Si nihil horum intellectu percepi&s;ti, &ocirc; homo, (percipies autem forta&s;&s;e aliquando cum perfectionem con&s;ecutus fueris &amp; ut conjicere po&s;&s;imus ea quae nunc cernimus, non veritatem ip&s;am e&s;&s;e, &s;ed quaedam duntaxat veritat<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s &s;imulachra) &s;i teip&s;um non no&s;ti, qui&s;quis es qui de his rebus di&s;putas, &s;i haec nondum intellectu comprehendi&s;ti, quorum &s;en&s;us ip&s;e te&s;tis e&s;t, quo tandem mo|do Quid, &amp; Quantus &s;it Deus, te cert&ograve; tenere ac &s;cire arbitraris? Magnae profect&ograve; id &s;tultitiae e&s;t. Quocirca &s;iquid mihi obtemperas, hoc e&s;t Theologo minim&egrave; audaci, ut nonnulla jam percepi&s;ti, ita ea quae &s;u|per&s;unt ut percipias, roga, precibu&s;&abque; contende. Ea parte quae in te manet contentus e&s;to: reliqua in &s;upernis the&s;auris recondita maneat. Per vitae probitatem a&s;cende: per purgationem, eum qui purus e&s;t adi|pi&s;cere. Vis Theologus aliquando fieri, ac divinitate dignus? Man|data &s;erva: per Dei praecepta incede (actio enim gradus e&s;t ad con|templationem) ex corpore operam animae nava. An qui&s;quam e&s;t mortalium qui ad eam &s;ublimitatem efferri po&s;&s;it, ut ad Pauli men&s;u|ram perveniat? At ille tamen videre &s;e per &s;peculum &amp; aenigma dicit, tempu&s;que affore, quo facie ad faciem vi&s;urus &s;it; &s;is tu licet aliis in Di&s;putando &s;ublimior: at Deo haud dubie inferior es. Sis licet aliis forta&s;&s;e acutior &amp; per&s;picacior: at certe veritate tanto po&s;terior es, quanto e&s;&s;entia Dei e&s;&s;entiam tuam antecellit] <HI>See the re&s;t to the end.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 LANG="lat" TYPE="quotation">
<PB REF="3">
<HEAD><HI>Idem</HI> Naz. <HI>Orat. 34. pag.</HI> 538, 539.</HEAD>
<P><GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. <HI>Deum intellectu per|cipere difficile e&s;t, eloqui autem impo&s;&s;ibile, ut prophanorum Theologorum</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Plato</HI> is the man he means. Note that proud Heathens con|fe&s;s a difficulty, but humble Chri&s;tians an impo&s;&s;ibility.</NOTE> <HI>quidam docuit, meo quidem judicio non incallid&egrave;; nempe ut ex eo quod intellectu difficilem affirmat, opinionem hominibus afferat, &s;e eum cognitione percepi&s;&s;e. Ex eo autem quod nullis verbis eum explicari po&s;&s;e ait, hoc agat ne in&s;citia &s;ua prodi atque convinci queat. Ego ver&ograve; ita potius dicendum cen&s;eo [Dei naturam nullis quidem verbis ex|plicari po&s;&s;e; animo autem atque intellectu comprehendi multo minus po&s;&s;e, Nam quod quis animo atque ratione complexus fuerit, id quoque forta&s;&s;e &s;ermone declarare queat, &s;i non &s;atis dilucide atque per&s;picue, at &s;altem ob&s;cure, mod&ograve; auditorem nactus &s;it non omnin&ograve; &s;urdum, tardi&abque; &amp; &s;tupidi ingenij. At rem tantam animo comprehendere omnino impo&s;|&s;ibile e&s;t, non modo ignavis &amp; languidis, deor&s;umque vergentibus, &s;ed magnis etiam &amp; excel&s;is viris, Deique amore praeditis, ac m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rtalibus peraeque omnibus, quibus ad veri cognitionem, caligo haec &amp; carnis cra&s;&s;ities tenebras offundit. Atque haud &s;cio an hoc quoque &s;ublimiori|bus illis &amp; intelligentibus naturis negatum &s;it, quae quia Deo propius junctae &s;unt, ac toto &s;uo &s;plendore collucent, cernere uti&abque; <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">orta&s;&s;e queant, &s;i non pror&s;us, at certe pleni&ugrave;s quam nos &amp; &s;olidius, at&abque; aliae aliis, pro cuju&s;&abque; ordine, vel uberius, vel parcius.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Nec vero haec verba ita accipi velim, qua&s;i percipi non po&s;&s;e dicam,</HI> Quod &s;it Deus: &s;ed Quid &amp; Quale <HI>&s;it. Ne&abque; enim inanis est praedicatio no&s;tra, nec vana fides no&s;tra; nec id e&s;t quod a&s;truimus (ne rur&s;us id quod probe candideque diximus, in impietatis &amp; calumniae argumen|tum trahas, ac nobis ut ignorantiam confitentibus, arroganter in&s;ultes.) Plurimum nam&abque; intere&s;t, cert&ograve; tibi per&s;uadeas, aliquid e&s;&s;e, an Quid tandem illud &s;it compertum habeas. Etenim Quod Deus &s;it, ac Princeps quaedam cau&s;a, quae res omnes procreavit, at&abque; con&s;ervet, tum couli ip&s;i, tum Lex naturalis docet,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Ac nimis profecto hebes ac &s;tolidus e&s;t, qui&s;quis non hucu&s;&abque; &s;ponte &s;ua progreditur, naturalium&abque; dem<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n&s;trati|onum ve&s;tigiis in&s;i&s;tit, at&abque; adeo hoc &s;ibi per&s;uadet,</HI> Ne id quidem De|um e&s;&s;e, quod vel imagine quadam animi concepimus, vel informavi|mus; vel orationis penicillo utcun&abque; de&s;crip&s;imus. <HI>Quod &s;iquis unquam cogitatione Deum quoquo modo compr<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">hendit, quonam ob&s;ecro argumento id prohabit?</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<PB REF="3">
<P>Pag. 548. <HI>Quid tandem Deus natura &s;ua &amp; e&s;&s;entia &s;it, nec ho|minum qui&s;quam unquam invenit, nec invenire potest. An ver&ograve; ali|quando &s;it inventurus, quaerat h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">c, qui volet, ac per&s;crut<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tur.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Pag.</HI> 556. Having heaped up many intricacies and in&s;uperable dif|ficulties about the creatures, he addes [<HI>Po&s;&s;untne hoc expedire Phy&s;ici, at&abque; inanis eruditionis laude celebres, ac vere cyatho mare, hoc e&s;t, res tantas ingenio &s;uo metientes?</HI>]</P>
<P>I intreat the capable Reader to peru&s;e the re&s;t of that excellent Oration in the Author.</P>
<P>I cite the&s;e pa&s;&s;ages 1. If it were po&s;&s;ible to per&s;wade poor mor|tals that we are no Gods, nor &s;hould a&s;pire as did the father of &s;in|ners; and therefore that we have le&s;s knowledge of Gods E&s;&s;ence and nature, then the vain Di&s;putes called Schoolmen have long pretended to. 2. That hereby the matter of the Churches conten|tions being removed, our wounds may clo&s;e again. For who know|eth not, how many curious and vain, though much applauded Vo|lumes, are all built upon the &s;ands of &s;ome pre&s;umptuous &s;uppo&s;i|tion of the Nature of God? If they did not take it for granted that God doth properly <HI>&V;nder&s;tand</HI> and <HI>Will,</HI> and properly <HI>Intendere finem,</HI> with many the like, what matter could they have for their Voluminous contentions? If but only tho&s;e two &s;uppo&s;itions were known to be (at lea&s;t) uncertain, what &s;hould we do with all tho&s;e Learned Writings that &s;o &s;ubtilly Di&s;pute of the order and number of Gods Decrees? and how &s;hould we e&s;teem them? He that will reade the <HI>Augustane</HI> Confe&s;&s;ion, may &s;ee what thoughts the fir&s;t Prote&s;tants had of the Controver&s;ies about Prede&s;tination, and how little of that doctrine did enter their Religion.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="quotation">
<HEAD><HI>Vide</HI> Eu&s;ebium <HI>Praeparat. Evangelic. lib. undecimo, cap.</HI> 12.</HEAD>
<P>Where he affirms that <HI>M<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;es</HI> and all the Prophets teach that Gods Nature cannot be explicated by words, and that his Name is ineffa|ble, and how <HI>Plato</HI> agreeth with them.</P>
<P>As al&s;o <HI>cap.</HI> 9. where he makes the very Name <HI>Ens</HI> proper to God, and alledgeth. <HI>Plato</HI>'s con&s;ent, and <HI>cap.</HI> 10. the con&s;ent of <HI>Numenius,</HI> and <HI>cap.</HI> 11. the con&s;ent of <HI>Plutarch.</HI></P>
<P>Al&s;o <HI>lib. 8. cap. 8. pag. (mihi)</HI> 365. out of <HI>Jo&s;ephus</HI> he citeth this, [That God is the <HI>Beginning,</HI> the <HI>Middle,</HI> the <HI>End</HI> of all things, and
<PB REF="4"> as he is in Works and Benefits con&s;picuous, yea of all things by far the mo&s;t notable (or known) &s;o is he both in Nature and Greatne&s;s mo&s;t ob&s;cure: Nothing that is like him (or no likene&s;s of him) can be &s;een of us, or imagined by us; nay it is not lawfull &s;o much as lightly to frame it (&s;uch a re&s;emblance) in our mindes.]</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 LANG="lat" TYPE="quotation">
<HEAD>Novatianus (<HI>nondum lap&s;us) lib. 1. de Trinitate inter opera</HI> Tertulliani, <HI>cap.</HI> 7.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Sed tamen &amp; ip&s;e (Chri&s;tus) &s;ic adhuc de Deo loquitur hominibus quomodo po&s;&s;unt adhuc audire, vel capere: licet in agnitionem Dei re|ligio&s;am jam facere incrementa nitatur: Invenimus enim &s;criptum e&s;&s;e quod Deus charitas dictus &s;it; nec ex hoc tamen Dei &s;ub&s;tantia cha|ritas expre&s;&s;a est. Et quod Lux dictus e&s;t, nec tamen in hoc &s;ub&s;tan|tia Dei e&s;t; Sed totum hoc de Deo dictum e&s;t quantum dici pote&s;t; ut merito &amp; quando &s;piritus dictus e&s;t, non omne id quod e&s;t dictus e&s;t, &s;ed ut dum mens hominum intelligendo u&s;&abque; ad ip&s;um proficit &s;piritum, con|ver&s;a jam ip&s;a in &s;piritu aliud quid ampli&ugrave;s per &s;piritum conjicere, De|um e&s;&s;e po&s;&s;it.</HI> Id enim quod e&s;t, &s;ecundum id quod e&s;t, nec humano &s;ermone edici, nec humanis auribus percipi, nec humanis &s;en&s;ibus colligi pote&s;t. <HI>Nam &s;i quae praeparavit Deus his qui diligunt illum, nec oculus vidit, nec auris audivit, nec cor hominis, aut mens ip&s;a percepit, qualis &amp; quantus e&s;t ille ip&s;e, qui haec repromittit, ad quae intelligenda &amp; mens hominis &amp; natura defecit.</HI></P>
<P>This is one note by which it is known not to be <HI>Tertullian</HI>'s wri|ting, becau&s;e <HI>Tertullian</HI> gro&s;&s;y erred in making God too like the creature, as is well known.</P>
<P>The like pa&s;&s;ages you may reade, <HI>in</HI> Ruffini <HI>Expo&s;it. in Symbolum Apo&s;tolor, Sect.</HI> 4, 5, 6, 8. with &s;everal difficulties propo&s;ed in things about our &s;elves, to convince us of our ignorance.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 LANG="lat" TYPE="quotation">
<HEAD><HI>Author de Cardinalibus operibus Chri&s;ti inter opera</HI> Cypriani <HI>Prolog.</HI> &sect;. 3. p. 482.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Nec patitur ad liquidum &s;e videri Divinitas, quam uti&abque; inve&s;tiga|tio, fidelis aliquo modo adorat vel &s;entit: &s;ed puram ejus e&s;&s;entiam nec con&s;picit, nec comprehendit: Affirmatio quippe de Dei e&s;&s;entia in promptu haberi non pote&s;t; ne&abque; enim definibilis e&s;t Divinitas; &s;ed
<PB REF="4"> verius &s;inceriu&s;&abque; remotio indicat, negando quid non fit, quam A&s;&s;eren|do quid &s;it. Quoniam quicquid &s;en&s;ui &s;ubjacet, illud e&s;&s;e non pote&s;t quod omnem &s;uperat intellectum. Quicquid audiri, vel videri vel</HI> &s;ciri <HI>pote&s;t, non convenit maje&s;tati; hebes e&s;t in hac con&s;ideratione omnis acies &s;en&s;uum &amp; caligat a&s;pectus.</HI>&mdash;p. 483. &sect;. 8. <HI>Et utinam me ip|&s;um cogno&s;cam &amp; &s;ciam! Quod &s;i animae meae quae corporis mei obtinet principatum, nec originem &s;cio, nec metior quantitatem, nec qualis &s;it intueri <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">fficio, &s;i ignota e&s;t mihi ratio quare ip&s;a delectetur in corpore per&s;ecutore &s;uo,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>patienter me ferre oportet &s;i operatorem univer&s;itatis non intelligo, qui in minimis operationum &s;uarum particulis meam pro|fiteor caecitatem.</HI></P>
<P>Reade the re&s;t of that Prologue excellently &s;hewing how far God is known, and how far not.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 LANG="lat" TYPE="quotation">
<HEAD>Syne&s;ius <HI>de Regno,</HI> pag. 8, 9. <HI>Edit.</HI> Petavianae.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Nullum unquam n<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">men inventum e&s;t quod Dei naturam a&s;&s;equere|tur, &s;ed cum ab ea exprimenda homines aberrarent, per ea quae ab illo fiebant, ip&s;um attingere conati &s;unt; &s;ive ergo Patrem, conditorem, &s;ive aliud quidpiam dixeris, &s;ive Principium, &s;ive cau&s;am, haec omnia re&s;pectus quidam &s;unt, &amp; ad ea quae ab illo oriuntur comparationes. Eodem modo Regem &s;i appellis ab iis quorum Rex e&s;t, non a propria per|&s;ona naturam illius apprehendere c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">naberis. Venio jam ad reliqua ejus nomina,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Bonum uti&abque; Deum omnes, tam &s;apientes quam imperiti homines ubi&abque; celebrant,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Nondum tamen hoc ip&s;um</HI> Bonum <HI>quan|tumvis extra contentionem po&s;itum, Dei in natura &s;ua &s;tabilitatem de|clarat: ex iis vero quae po&s;teriora &s;unt corrogatur. Nec enim Boni no|men, ab&s;olutum quid auribus &s;onat, &s;ed illis Bonum qu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rum efficax e&s;t, qui&abque; eo frui po&s;&s;unt,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Vide reliq. ib.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 LANG="lat" TYPE="quotation">
<HEAD>Cyrillus, <HI>Hiero&s;ol. Cateche&s;.</HI> 6. pag. 46, 47, 48. is large on this.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Dicimus non quae oportet de Deo; nam ei &s;oli haec nota &s;unt: Sed quae pro &s;uo modulo capere natura humana pote&s;t, &amp; quae imbecillitas no&s;tra ferre valet. Non enim Quid &s;it Deus exponimus: Nam candide nos accuratam de eo cognitionem non habere confitemur. Quam ignorantiam agno&s;centes, magnam de Deo cognitionem profitemur.&mdash;At dicet qui&s;piam, Si comprehendi nequit e&s;&s;entia Divina, quid e&s;t quod tu de his enarras?</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Laude Dominum decorare, non exprimere verbis aggredior,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Quid igitur, dicet aliquis, nonne &s;criptum e&s;t quod
<PB REF="5"> Angeli caelorum vident &s;emper faciem patris mei qui in caelis e&s;t? At vident Angeli non &s;icut Deus e&s;t, &s;ed quatenus ip&s;i capere po&s;&s;unt,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Cum igitur Angeli ne&s;ciant, nullus homo &s;uam erube&s;cat in&s;citiam, &amp; ignorantiam confiteri, tum ego qui nunc loquor, tum omnes omnium temporum homines. Quin etiam quomodo enunciare non po&s;&s;umus: Nam quomodo po&s;&s;em eum verbis exprimere, qui ip&s;e dedit ut ver|ba promam? Ego qui Animam habeo nec ejus formam linea|mentave po&s;&s;um exprimere, quomodo con&s;ervatorem animae enunciare potero?</HI></P>
<P>Cyrillus Alexandr. <HI>To. 1. The&s;aur. li. 11. c.</HI> 1. E&s;pecially near the end, is full for the &s;ame as the former cited Authors, as he doth in divers other places. And in Commentary on <HI>John</HI> among <HI>Cyrill</HI>'s Works, but indeed <HI>Clictoveus,</HI> it is frequent. As <HI>li. 1. c. 13. Nam quemadmodum quamvis nullus novit quidnam &s;ecundum naturam Deus &s;it, Ju&s;tifica|tur tamen per fidem quum credat praemia illum redditurum quaerentibus eum: &s;ic et &s;i operum ejus rationem ignorat, quum tamen fide omnia illum po&s;&s;e non dubitet, non contemnenda tamen probitatis hujus praemia con|&s;equetur.</HI></P>
<P>And <HI>li. 9. c. 34. Sed nullus naturae Deitatis capax intellectus e&s;t. Ac ideo furio&s;us e&s;t qui audet temeraria &s;crutatione rimari quidnam Deus &s;ecundum naturam e&s;t. &V;mbris tamen &amp; aenigmatibus ut in &s;peculo,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Augu&s;tin. <HI>de Trinitat.</HI> reproves three &s;orts of Errours about God, in the entrance, <HI>lib. 1. cap.</HI> 1. 1. Tho&s;e that judge of &s;piri|tual things by corporeal. The &s;econd is tho&s;e <HI>Qui &s;ecundum hu|mani animi</HI> naturam <HI>vel affectum de Deo &s;entiunt, &s;iquid &s;entiunt.</HI> 3, Tho&s;e that do indeed endeavour to tran&s;cend the mutable crea|ture that they may rai&s;e their intention to God, <HI>&s;ed mortalitatis onere praegravati, cum &amp; videri volunt &s;cire quod ne&s;ciunt, &amp; quod volunt &s;cire non po&s;&s;unt, prae&s;umptiones opinionum &s;uarum audacius affirmando, intercludunt &s;ibimet intelligentiae vias, magis eligentes &s;en|tentiam &s;uam non corrigere perver&s;am, quam mutare defen&s;am,</HI> &amp;c.&mdash;<HI>Quae vero</HI> proprie <HI>de Deo dicuntur, quanquam in</HI> nulla creatura inve|niuntur, <HI>raro ponit Scriptura Divina,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<PB REF="5">
<P>Clemens Alexandr. <HI>Stromat. li.</HI> 5. commends <HI>Plato</HI> for &s;aying that God cannot be expre&s;&s;ed by words, as agreeing with Scripture; and him&s;elf addeth that he is neither <HI>Genus, Species, differentia, indivi|duum, numerus, accidens, nec cui aliquid accidit, totum, pars,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Et ideo e&s;t figurae expers, &amp; quod nominari non pote&s;t. Et &s;i aliquando eum nominemus,</HI> non proprie <HI>vocantes aut &V;num, aut Bonum, aut</HI> Mentem, <HI>aut ip&s;um id quod e&s;t, aut Patrem, aut Deum, aut Crea|torem, aut Dominum: non id dicimus tanquam nomen ejus proferen|tes, &s;ed propter ejus pote&s;tatem pulchris utimur nominibus, ut in aliis non aberrans, his inniti po&s;&s;it cogitatio,</HI> &amp;c. I u&s;e <HI>Hervetus</HI> tran|&s;lation.</P>
<BIBL>Irenaeus <HI>li. 2. cap.</HI> 16.</BIBL>
<Q>E&s;t autem &amp; &s;uper haec &amp; propter haec inenarrabilis: &s;en&s;us enim capax omnium bene &amp; recte dicetur, &s;ed non &s;imilis hominum &s;en&s;ui: Et lumen recti&s;&s;ime dicetur; &s;ed nihil &s;imile ei, quod est &s;ecundum nos lumini. Si autem e&s;t in reliquis hominibus, nulli &s;imilis erit omnium pater hominum pu&s;illitati: &amp; dicitur quidem &s;ecundum haec propter dilectionem, &s;entitur autem &s;uper haec &s;ecundum magnitudinem.</Q>
<BIBL>Ju&s;tin Martyr <HI>Serm. ad Gent. exhort.</HI></BIBL>
<Q><HI>Intellexit</HI> (Plato) <HI>Deum non indica&s;&s;e illi</HI> (Mo&s;i) <HI>nomen &s;uum pro|prium. Nullum enim pote&s;t Deo convenire propri&eacute;.</HI></Q>
<BIBL>Idem <HI>Apolog.</HI> 1.</BIBL>
<Q><HI>Pro Chri&s;tian. &V;niver&s;orum Pater nullum nomen habet inditum: Pater enim, Deus, Creator, Dominus, Herus, non no|mina &s;unt, &s;ed a beneficentia de&s;umpta vocabula,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Sicut &amp;</HI> Dei <HI>vocabulum non tam nomen e&s;t, quam inenarrabilis rei hominibus innata opinio.</HI></Q>
<BIBL>Idem <HI>Apol.</HI> 2.</BIBL>
<Q>Quis enim pote&s;t dicere quodnam &s;it nomen ineffabile? quod nemo ni&s;i deplorate in&s;anus proferre tentaret.</Q>
<P>I conclude from all this, that either it is certain that <HI>Intelligere, Velle, Amare, Intondere,</HI> &amp;c. are not &s;poken of God Properly, or by Analogy of Attribution (as they &s;peak) or at lea&s;t, that it is ut|terly uncertain to us, whether it be &s;o or not: But that we mu&s;t
<PB REF="6"> u&s;e both the&s;e and lower notions of God, from the gla&s;s of mans nature and actions, &s;till confe&s;&s;ing the Impropriety in all, and that we have no po&s;itive formall certain apprehen&s;ion of the thing ex|pre&s;&s;ed (<HI>viz.</HI> God and his acts) but only a general apprehen&s;ion that it is &s;omewhat which is be&s;t repre&s;ented to us in the gla&s;s of the&s;e metaphorical Notions, which contain as great a likene&s;s to the thing it &s;elf as we are now capable of reaching; and upon the&s;e con&s;ide|rations we mu&s;t &s;tick clo&s;e to the Scripture phra&s;e which conde|&s;cendeth &s;o low in &s;peaking of God; and not hearken to the un|proved fancies of Schoolmen, that tell us <HI>This act</HI> is properly in God, as implying no imperfection, and <HI>That is</HI> not &s;eeing all humane acts do contain imperfection in their very formall na|ture.</P>
<P>As <HI>Salvian de Provid. li. 3. p.</HI> 62, 63. &s;aith, &s;o, <HI>&agrave; fortiore,</HI> do I: <HI>Ne&s;cio &s;ecretum, &amp; con&s;ilium Divinitatis ignoro. Sufficit mihi ad cau&s;ae hujus probationem dicti caele&s;tis oraculum. Si &s;cire vis quid te|nendum &s;it, habes literas &s;acras: perfecta ratio e&s;t hoc tenere quod legeris. Qua cau&s;a autem Deus haec de quibus loquimur, ita faciat, nolo a me requiras. Homo &s;um, non intelligo &s;ecreta Dei; inve&s;ti|gare non audeo, &amp; ideo etiam attentare formind<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">: quia &amp; hoc ip&s;um genus qua&s;i &s;acrilegae temeritatis e&s;t, &s;i plus &s;cire cupias, quam &s;inaris,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Sicut enim plus e&s;t Deus quam omnis ratio humana, &s;ic plus mihi debet e&s;&s;e quam ratio, quod a Deo agi cuncta cog|no&s;co.</HI></P>
<P><GAP DESC="foreign"> &amp;c. &s;aith <HI>Macarius</HI> Homil. 1. <HI>Ne&abque; enim Naturae Divinae e&s;t Anima</HI> (therefore Intellection and Vo|lition are not the Divine Nature) <HI>ne&abque; Naturae tenebrarum malitiae; &s;ed e&s;t quid creatum &s;en&s;ibile, vi&s;ibile, in&s;igne &amp; admirandum, atque elegans &s;imilitudo &amp; Imago Dei.</HI>] Intellection and Volition are in their natures comprehen&s;ible, but that which in God we call Intel|lection and Volition is incomprehen&s;ible, and not to be formally under&s;tood. <HI>Quis enim pote&s;t capere quantus &s;it Deus?</HI> (&s;aith <HI>The|ophylact</HI> in <HI>Luc. 12.) &amp; manifestum e&s;t ex Seraphin, qui &s;e obtegunt propter excellentiam Divini luminis.</HI> Which is as true of Gods E&s;|&s;ence as his Greatne&s;s: and as true is it of formall proper intelle|ction, as <HI>Minutius Faelix</HI> &s;aith of Vi&s;ion, <HI>Deum oculis carnalibus vis videre, cum ip&s;am animam tuam qu&agrave; vivificaris &amp; loqueris, nec ae&s;picere po&s;&s;is, nec tueri?</HI></P>
<PB REF="6">
<P><HI>Epiphanius</HI> di&s;puting again&s;t tho&s;e hone&s;t Hereticks, called the <HI>Audians</HI> (ca&s;t out of the Church by the Bi&s;hops for their hone&s;ty, and at la&s;t bani&s;hed.) <HI>Haere&s;. 70. pag.</HI> 815, 816. &s;peaking again&s;t tho&s;e that placed the Image of God in the Soul only (as the <HI>Audians</HI> did place it in the Body) becau&s;e, &s;ay they, the &s;oul is Invi&s;ible, and hath the Power of Acting, Moving, Under&s;tanding, Rea&s;oning, and therefore contains the Image of God, he An&s;wereth, That [If therefore the &s;oul be &s;aid to be made to (Gods) Image, it can|not be &s;aid to be made after his Image at all: <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. <HI>Deus enim Infinitis prae anim&acirc; partibus eo&abque; amplius, comprehen&s;ionem omnem ac cogitationem effugit,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Ip&s;e enim cum omnia comprehendit, tum a nullo comprehenditur.</HI>] And after [<HI>Spi|ritus enim Deus e&s;t qui omnem &s;piritum exuperat, &amp; lux luce omni prae|&s;tantior. Quicquid enim ab ip&s;o conditum e&s;t, infra illius decus &amp; glo|riam e&s;t. Sola vero Trinitas comprehendi non pote&s;t, &amp; infinitam quandam gloriam obtinet, quae nec conjectur&acirc; capitur, nec Intelligen|tia percipitur.</HI></P>
<P>I conclude with the words of <HI>Colvius in Beverovic. de Termino Vitae,</HI> pag. 160, 163, 164. [<HI>Non Intelligitis quomodo Intelligatis, centum Syllogi&s;mos facitis &amp; ne&s;citis quomodo: &amp; vultis Intelligere quomodo ille Intelligit qui e&s;t &s;upra omnem intellectum?</HI> &amp;c.] [<HI>Quod &s;i exigua haec &amp; contemptibilia naturae penetrare non pote&s;t humani ingenii acies, annon e&s;t extremae impudentiae nos velle pertingere ad ip&s;am Di|vinam e&s;&s;entiam? Quae e&s;t <GAP DESC="foreign"> in &s;eip&s;a, nobis ver&ograve;</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. <HI>Non terminatur vi&s;u, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">on tenetur tectu, non &s;entitur ince&s;&s;u, non comprehenditur Intellectu; Major omni corde, major omni laude.&mdash;Novi homines, bullae na&s;cen|tes &amp; evane&s;centes,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>exhaurire vultis mare va&s;culo? terram metiri palmo?</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Furor e&s;t cogitare homuncionem videre Dei fines, qui &s;uos non videt, Deum velle metiri qui &s;uam men&s;uram ignorat, ut capiat Divinitatis terminos quos non capit ip&s;e mundus; cujus vix Imago e&s;t &s;piritus, cujus umbra mundus, judicia aby&s;&s;us.&mdash;Deum laudare omnes po&s;&s;umus &amp; debemus, definire nemo pote&s;t: Non potest Deus quaeri nimis; inveniri nunquam pote&s;t, digne ip&s;um ae&s;timamus cum inae&s;ti|mabilem confitemur: digne laudamus cum prae &s;tupore animi in &s;ilentio ip&s;um adoramus; apprehendi pote&s;t voluntate, comprehendi non pote&s;t
<PB REF="7"> intellectu. Major e&s;t ip&s;ius Incomprehen&s;ibilitas quam comprehenderc po&s;&s;umus: Non ita capit eum arguta &s;cientia, quam illum &s;entit &amp; gu&s;tat munda con&s;cientia: Melius nos docet eum &V;nctio quam erudi|tio. Hoc e&s;t illud manna ab&s;conditum, quod ip&s;e dat timentibus ip&s;um, non autem iis qui in arcana illius temere involant. Et idcirco veniunt indocti &amp; qui Deum &s;umma cum reverentia colunt, &amp; rapiunt regnum caelorum; interim acuti&s;&s;ima &amp; &s;uperbi&s;&s;ima ingenia evane&s;cunt, in propriis &s;ubtilitatibus, &amp; merguntur in infernum: loqui volentes de profundis mer&s;i &s;unt in profundis.&mdash;Quocirca optime bonas horas collo|cant, qui veritatem &s;ummo &s;tudio quaerunt: Sed pe&s;&s;ime judicant qui &s;e illam inveni&s;&s;e putant.&mdash;De&s;ino, &amp; dico cum Hilario, quod non per difficiles quae&s;tiones ad vitam beatam nos ducat Deus.</HI></P>
<P>The Lord repair by Love, Humility and Holy Obedience, the ruines that have long been made in his Church, by Contention, Pride, and un&s;anctified-pre&s;umptuous-ignorant-Learning, and re|duce men to the Scripture &s;implicity of Doctrine, and convince them that their <HI>overmuch</HI> Wi&s;dom is but Folly, and all their <HI>over-doing</HI> but <HI>undoing.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="table of contents">
<PB REF="7">
<HEAD>THE CONTENTS.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>&sect;. 1.<HI> _THe Prologue to M</HI>^r K. Pag. 1.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 2. <HI>M</HI>^r K'<HI>s &s;tumbling at the thre&s;hold.</HI> 3</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 2. <HI>Whether it be true that D</HI>^r Twi&s;s <HI>means not that the Immanent act may be &s;tiled Justification.</HI> 4</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 2. <HI>M</HI>^r Pemble'<HI>s words of Ju&s;tification at Christs death.</HI> 6</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 3. <HI>M</HI>^r K. <HI>confe&s;&s;eth that I affirm not the novelty of Immanent acts in God, and yet choo&s;eth me to Di&s;pute again&s;t on the Point.</HI> 6</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 3. <HI>A free and full Di&s;covery of my own Opinion in that Point.</HI> 7, 8</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 4. <HI>The Rea&s;ons of my mentioning D</HI>^r Twi&s;s <HI>as I did: and whether I be guilty of &s;leighting him: or M</HI>^r K. <HI>rather of &s;leighting the A&s;&s;em|bly.</HI> 11, 12</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 5. <HI>M</HI>^r K'<HI>s grant Argument again&s;t new Immanent acts in God, examined. Whether it be certain to us that God hath no Immanent act but of &V;nder&s;tanding or Will? A recitall of &s;ome Rea&s;ons of tho&s;e that hold new Immanent acts of &V;nder&s;tanding in God: with my thoughts of them. Al&s;o about the acts of Will. More of their Rea&s;ons recited to prove the newne&s;s of Immanent acts, or at lea&s;t the Nece&s;&s;ity or Con|veniency of Denominating them as New, from the newne&s;s of the object. It is as con&s;i&s;tent with Gods Eternity and Immutability to have New acts, as with his &s;implicity to have divers acts: yet mu&s;t we conceive of his Willing and Nilling and &V;nder&s;tanding as divers, or at lea&s;t &s;o denominate them.</HI> 15, 29</ITEM>
<PB REF="8">
<ITEM>&sect;. 6. &amp; 7. <HI>An Examination of M</HI>^r K'<HI>s Doctrine of Analogy.</HI> 30, 36</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 7. &amp; 8. <HI>Whether Intellection and Volition be a&s;cribed to God by Analogy At|tribution, as M</HI>^r K. <HI>affirms?</HI> 37, 39</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 9. <HI>The true Analy&s;is and &s;en&s;e of my words which M</HI>^r K. <HI>oppo&s;eth.</HI> 40, 41</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 10, 11, 12, <HI>Whether an Act be properly an Effect?</HI> 42, 43</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 13. <HI>Whether M</HI>^r K. <HI>&s;peak truly, when he &s;aith [Neither doth it (action) carry that &s;tile (of an effect) in any of the&s;e Learned Sophies,</HI> &amp;c.] 44, 45</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 15. <HI>Gods acts no Accidents. Acts inhere not in a &s;ubject.</HI> 47</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 16. <HI>Whether Gods Immanent acts have any other Terms then their objects.</HI> 48</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 17. <HI>Whether the difference a&s;&s;igned by M</HI>^r K. <HI>between Gods Immanent and Tran&s;ient acts, be as clear as between heaven and earth. And whom I meant in that Que&s;tion Whether Immanent acts be any more Eter|nal then Tran&s;ient?</HI> 49</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 17. <HI>An An&s;wer to M</HI>^r K'<HI>s</HI> 150. 154. pages <HI>again&s;t M</HI>^r Goodwin. 50, 51, 52</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 18, 19. <HI>The An&s;wers that &s;ome make to M</HI>^r K'<HI>s Arguments again&s;t the newne&s;s of Immanent acts.</HI> 53, 54, 55</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 19. <HI>Whether the ground of &s;uch new acts as a&s;cribed be in God or the crea|ture.</HI> 55, 57</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 20. <HI>How ungroundedly M</HI>^r K. <HI>chargeth me with contending with D</HI>^r Twi&s;s <HI>and all &s;ober Divines that ever were worthy to &s;peak to a School Point.</HI> 58</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 21. <HI>Whether it be not from the re&s;pect to the object that Gods E&s;&s;ence is called Knowledge, or the Knowledge of this or that.</HI> 59</ITEM>
<PB REF="8">
<ITEM>&sect;. 22. <HI>Whether it be all one to know the futurity and the exi&s;tence of things.</HI> 60</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 23. <HI>M</HI>^r K'<HI>s unworthy fa&s;tening on me words of his divi&s;ing.</HI> 61</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 24. <HI>An example &s;hewing that Immanent and Tran&s;ient acts, are of the &s;ame nature.</HI> 62</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 25. <HI>M</HI>^r K'<HI>s An&s;wer to the in&s;tance of the Sunnes not being changed by ob|jects, is partly Lu&s;ory, partly yieldeth the Cau&s;e, and partly Er|roneous.</HI> 63</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 26. <HI>M</HI>^r K'<HI>s Exceptions about the &s;imilitude of a Gla&s;&s;e, refelled.</HI> 64, 65, 66</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 27. <HI>A Recapitulation of what I have &s;aid on this Subject.</HI> 67</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 27. <HI>The great incapacity of man to comprehend the nature and acts of God.</HI> 68, 69</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 27. Rob. Baronius <HI>Te&s;timony about Mutation of Immanent acts. And &s;ome Scripture Te&s;timony.</HI> 72, 73</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 29. <HI>M</HI>^r K'<HI>s &s;econd undertaking to little purpo&s;e: contrary to the former: and how ill performed,</HI> 77</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 29. <HI>Ju&s;tification or Remi&s;&s;ion, not from Eternity.</HI> 78, 79</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 29. <HI>M</HI>^r K'<HI>s Rea&s;ons to prove Gods Decree to have &s;omewhat like Ju&s;tifica|tion, do as much prove it to have &s;omewhat like Sanctification and Glorification.</HI> 80, 84</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 29. <HI>M</HI>^r K'<HI>s Antinomian doctrine, fal&s;e, that [being ju&s;tified in Gods &s;ight, is when he makes us to &s;ee, or makes it evident to our &s;ight that we are ju&s;tified.</HI>] 85</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 29. <HI>The boldne&s;s and fal&s;ne&s;s of M</HI>^r K. <HI>affirmation, that [to Will to Will, was never heard of.</HI>] 86</ITEM>
<PB REF="9">
<ITEM>&sect;. 29. <HI>Seven Arguments proving that the Elicite acts of the Will, may be the object of the Will.</HI> 87</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 29. <HI>Six &s;everal ca&s;es wherein I finde that I will the acts of my own will.</HI> 88</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 29. <HI>Its untrue, that [he that Wils to Will, Wils no more then he doth al|ready.</HI>] ib.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 30. <HI>M</HI>^r K'<HI>s doctrine, that [the Decree to Remit &s;in, carries in it a Remi&s;&s;ion of them tantamount] is tantamount downright Antinomiani&s;m.</HI> 89</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 30. <HI>Ten mi&s;chievous con&s;equents of this Doctrine (and &s;o of Ju&s;tification from Eternity.</HI>) 90</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 30. <HI>Sin may be charged on us before we believe, for all Gods Decree to par|don it.</HI> 90, 91</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 30. <HI>M</HI>^r K'<HI>s Antinomian doctrine, that [there is no danger of &s;uffering for &s;in, where God decreeth to Remit it] confuted by many arguments: It maketh Chri&s;ts blood, to have &s;aved us from no danger, and God never to have freed us from danger,</HI> &amp;c. 92</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 30. <HI>Cha&s;ti&s;ement a &s;pecies of Puni&s;hment.</HI> ib.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 31. <HI>What is the Acceptance, which M</HI>^r K. <HI>makes the object of Gods Decree.</HI> 93</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 34. <HI>Pardon di&s;tingui&s;hed and defined.</HI> 96</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 34. <HI>M</HI>^r K'<HI>s de&s;perate language, calling the act of the Law of grace or pro|mi&s;e [An odde empty, moral, action] and that [by the promulgati|on of it, God doth as improperly give us Chri&s;t, or di&s;able the Law to condemn us.</HI>] 98</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 35. <HI>M</HI>^r K'<HI>s admirable doctrine that [the Covenant ju&s;tifieth by &s;uch an act as</HI> Quantitas <HI>hath</HI> faciendo Quantum, <HI>or</HI> Paternitas faciendo patrem, viz. <HI>informing.</HI> 100</ITEM>
<PB REF="9">
<ITEM>&sect;. 35. <HI>His profound Notion, that the Covenant ju&s;tifieth but</HI> Aptitudinaliter. 101</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 35. <HI>The Covenant pardoneth immediately, our faith being but a condition, and not a cau&s;e.</HI> ib.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 36. <HI>M</HI>^r K'<HI>s horned Argument an&s;wered [God ju&s;tifies by the Covenant All, or Some,</HI> &amp;c.] 103</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 37. <HI>M</HI>^r K'<HI>s de&s;perate Conclu&s;ion, that [thus a man wi&s;ely ju&s;tifies him&s;elf by beleeving, and more a great deal then the Covenant by promi&s;ing, or God by promulgating it.</HI>] 104</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 38. <HI>His further de&s;perate Doctrine [Just &s;o (as</HI> Adam <HI>brought death into the world rather then God) in the new Covenant, Believe and be ju&s;tified. Who Justifies the Believer, God or him&s;elf?</HI>] 106</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 39, 40, 41, 42. <HI>Much more to the &s;ame purpo&s;e, vainly intended to prove that I make man his own ju&s;tifier.</HI> 107</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 42. <HI>M</HI>^r K. <HI>&s;aith, the Judge who pronounceth the &s;entence, or the Law, do not &s;o properly condemn a malefactour as him&s;elf: Therefore &s;o the Believer ju&s;tifieth him&s;elf.</HI> 108</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 43. <HI>Whether M</HI>^r K'<HI>s Client be ingeniou&s;ly in&s;tructed, who being &s;aved from the Gallows by his Book, &s;aith, [Grammercy to my Reading more then to the courte&s;ie of the Law.</HI>] 109</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 44. <HI>The fal&s;ehood of M</HI>^r K'<HI>s Con&s;equence, that [he that performs the con|dition</HI> makes <HI>the grant become Ab&s;olute,] if it become &s;o on his per|formance.</HI> 110</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 45, 46. <HI>He unworthily intimates that I deny faith to be a real effect of God on the &s;oul: &s;aying, he will prove it again&s;t me, and pretending to force me to confe&s;s it.</HI> 111</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 46. <HI>He fal&s;ly affirms that I deny Habits di&s;tinct from the &s;oul.</HI> 112</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 47. <HI>About the in&s;trumentality of faith: the untruth of his fir&s;t An&s;wer,
<PB REF="10"> and non-&s;en&s;e or wor&s;e of the &s;econd.</HI> ib.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 48. <HI>M</HI>^r K. <HI>&s;aith,</HI> &sect;. 47. [<HI>I &s;hall make it appear to be both Gods in&s;trument and mans in &s;ome &s;en&s;e] and &sect;. 48. he &s;aith [I do not &s;ay it is (Gods In&s;trument) properly.</HI>] 113</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 49. <HI>M</HI>^r K. <HI>untruly &s;aith, [Faith is as much Gods In&s;trument as the new Covenant] and gives an ill de&s;cription of faith, as his rea&s;on.</HI> ib.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 50. <HI>His next Rea&s;on nothing to the purpo&s;e.</HI> 114</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 51. <HI>His ill explication of Gods Ju&s;tification by faith,</HI> viz. [<HI>declaring hereby the righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t to be his own.</HI>] 115</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 51. <HI>He &s;trangely affirms, that [man is the Subject, not the Authour of his own act of believing.</HI>] ib.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 52, 53. <HI>He makes man his own ju&s;tifier.</HI> 116</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 53. <HI>He odly &s;aith [Faith hath a proper cau&s;ality upon our Ju&s;tification pa&s;|&s;ively taken, that is, upon our receiving the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t.</HI>] 117</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 54. <HI>He confe&s;&s;eth that [it is needle&s;s to &s;ay, Faith is a pa&s;&s;ive In&s;trument.</HI>] 118</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 54. <HI>He dangerou&s;ly &s;aith [Faith doth help the action of the principal agent, that is, God in our Ju&s;tification.</HI> ib.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 54. <HI>More of his fal&s;e Accu&s;ation refelled.</HI> 119</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 56. <HI>He makes ju&s;tifying faith to be an Action which is Virtually a Pa&s;&s;ion, and that is, A &s;uffering our &s;elves to be led by the Spirit of God, and his authority, again&s;t the &s;ugge&s;tions of our own rea&s;on.</HI> 120</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 56. <HI>But proves the In&s;trumentality by &s;ilence.</HI> ib.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 57. <HI>His in&s;trument of Receiving no proper In&s;trument, as being no efficient.</HI> 121</ITEM>
<PB REF="10">
<ITEM>&sect;. 58. <HI>Moral in&s;truments have a Moral action.</HI> ib.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 59. <HI>How ill M</HI>^r K. <HI>makes a je&s;t of the In&s;trumentality of Chri&s;ts Covenant or Te&s;tament.</HI> 122</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 60. <HI>M</HI>^r K'<HI>s unan&s;werable arguing wherein he vanqui&s;heth me.</HI> 123</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 61. <HI>When I am proving that [the act of faith is not the In&s;trument of Ju|&s;tification] He confutes me by &s;aying, Faith is a Habit.</HI> 124</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 61. <HI>The rea&s;on why I will not contend with them that only call faith, the in|&s;trument of Receiving Christ.</HI> ib.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 62. <HI>Divines affirming commonly, that It is the act of faith, and not the Ha|bit that ju&s;tifieth, do thereby overthrow their own doctrine of faiths proper In&s;trumentality in ju&s;tifying.</HI> 125</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 62. <HI>M</HI>^r K. <HI>fir&s;t feigns me to call the Habit of faith a &s;anctified faculty, and then very gravely Schools me for it.</HI> 126</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 62. <HI>About the Real Identity of the &s;oul, its faculties, holine&s;s.</HI> ib.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 63. <HI>The &V;nrea&s;onabl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ne&s;s of M</HI>^r K'<HI>s impatiency.</HI> 128</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 64. <HI>How M</HI>^r K. <HI>can call [Faith a Habit, equivalent to a new faculty.</HI>] 129</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 64. <HI>D</HI>^r Twi&s;&s;e'<HI>s Arguments to prove that faith or other grace is no new power.</HI> 130</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 64. <HI>Faith is truly A moral power, that is, A Habit or Di&s;po&s;ition, without which we &s;hall not be true believers.</HI> 131</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 64. <HI>M</HI>^r K'<HI>s dead doctrine, that [without faith a man can no more do ought towards receiving Christ, then a dead man can walk or &s;peak.</HI>] ib.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 64. <HI>The vanity of his arguing for faiths in&s;trumental ju&s;tifying, from its [Giving life to the &s;oul in all &s;piritual operations.</HI>] 132</ITEM>
<PB REF="11">
<ITEM>&sect;. 65. <HI>More of the weakne&s;s of his arguings about receiving Chri&s;t, manife&s;ted.</HI> 133</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 66. <HI>The end of M</HI>^r K'<HI>s undertaking, con&s;idered. Whether I unworthily handled</HI> D^r Twi&s;s <HI>and M</HI>^r Pemble? <HI>An acknowledgement of all that Deficiency that M</HI>^r K. <HI>doth</HI> tanto molimine <HI>prove me guilty of.</HI> 134</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 67. <HI>M</HI>^r K. <HI>concludeth before he hath done his main task, which &s;o oft promi|&s;ed,</HI> viz. <HI>To tell us what is the Tran&s;ient-ju&s;tifying-act of God.</HI> 137</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 67. <HI>A conjecture at his &s;en&s;e. He de&s;troyeth his Cau&s;e unawares. Strange|ly mi&s;takes the nature of a Condition.</HI> 138</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 67. <HI>Ju&s;tification by faith, in Scripture &s;en&s;e, is not in</HI> foro con&s;cientiae. 139</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 67. <HI>Gods giving faith is not his immediate ju&s;tifying act, proved.</HI> 141</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 67. <HI>Arguments proving that it is in Law-&s;en&s;e (commonly called</HI> Senten|tia Legis) <HI>that we are fir&s;t ju&s;tified by Faith, and &s;o the Moral act of the Law is Gods immediate ju&s;tifying act.</HI> 141, 142</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. 68. <HI>The Conclu&s;ion.</HI> 143</ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB N="1" REF="11">
<HEAD><HI>The Prologue to M^r</HI> K.</HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 1.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Sir,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>_THough I would not have you re&s;trained from revealing Truth, yet if I had been worthy to have been of your coun&s;ell, I &s;hould have advi&s;ed you to have&punc; avoided this quarrel&s;om way. Our world hath <HI>Contention</HI> e|nough already; and it comes not from &s;o good a root (<HI>Prov.</HI> 13. 10.) nor is it &s;o good a &s;ymptom, nor doth it produce &s;uch lovely effects (<HI>Prov.</HI> 22. 10. &amp; 17. 19. &amp; 29. 21.) nor doth it bring &s;o good a name (<HI>Prov.</HI> 21. 24.) as may make it &s;eem de&s;irable in my eyes. Had you con&s;ulted <HI>Solomon</HI> him&s;elf, he would have bid you [<HI>Strive not with a man without a cau&s;e, if he have done thee no harm,</HI> Prov. 3. 30.] and [<HI>Go not forth ha&s;tily to &s;trive, le&s;t thou know not what to do in the end thereof, when thy neighbour hath put thee to &s;hame,</HI> 25. 8.] for [<HI>The beginning of &s;trife is as when one letteth out water: therefore leave off contention before it be medled with,</HI> 17. 14.] It &s;eems a &s;trange thing to me, that you could finde no man to deal with in the main Controver&s;ie here cho&s;en out, that was indeed again&s;t you, but that you mu&s;t make to your &s;elf, an adver&s;ary of one that you confe&s;s doth not once deny your Con|clu&s;ion. Unle&s;s it be becau&s;e you are likely with &s;uch a one to have the ea&s;ie&s;t conflict. But then you &s;hould have remembred, that the Victory will be as &s;mall. I pretend not to &s;uch a piercing knowledge, nor to &s;uch acquaintance in the invi|&s;ible regions, as to determine infallibly of what Province or Degree, of what qua|lity, <HI>albus an ater,</HI> that &s;pirit was tha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> rai&s;ed the &s;torm of your Pa&s;&s;ions, or to know exactly his name and &s;irname that animated the&s;e your lines: But &s;eeing you are plea&s;ed to choo&s;e me for your adver&s;ary, I mu&s;t de&s;ire you to bear with me if I &s;peak &s;ometime le&s;s plea&s;ingly; and to u&s;e what patience you have left, as know|ing you have drawn this trouble upon your &s;elf. And whereas you put me on a double imployment: one to de&s;end the Truth; and the other to defend my &s;elf; &s;o I perform the fir&s;t &s;ucce&s;sfully, I hope I may be excu&s;ed if I be more negligent in the later; yea if I give you the day, and free<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">y conf<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;s as much ignorance as you charge me with. Its true that I have not the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">s or Rob<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> of Honour, and as little de&s;erve them, as you here expre&s;s. But mi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 span"> I be &s;ure that I have right
<PB N="2" REF="12"> to that farre better Title (of piety) which you are plea&s;ed to be&s;tow on me, I could ea&s;ily allow you the other. I remember the de&s;cription of the old Chri&s;tians by <HI>Minutius Faelix, [N<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s qui non habitu &s;apientiam, &s;ed mente praeferimus; non eloqui|mur magna, &s;ed vivimu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">: gloriamur nos con&s;ec<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tos quod ill<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;umma contentione quae&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">|verunt, nec invenire potuerunt.</HI>] And that of <HI>Mirandula [Faelicitatem philo&s;ophia quae|rit, Theologia invenit, Religio po&s;&s;idet.</HI>] And to contend for the reputation of being Learned, I &s;hall &s;carce think is worth my labour, till I have higher thoughts of the prize. Mens thoughts and words are a poor felicity. Applau&s;e is &s;uch an aery nouri&s;hment, that I &s;ee few thrive by: (though I mu&s;t confe&s;s that in me, as well as in others&punc; the unrea&s;onable &s;in of pride is daily &s;tirring, and convincing me by experience that it is mortified but in part.) O that I may have the honour of be|ing a member of Chri&s;t, and then I can &s;pare the vain glory of the world! <HI>Vera ibi gloria erit, ubi laudantis nec errore qui&s;quam, nec adulatione laudabitur: Verus honor qui nulli negabitur digno; nulli deferetur indigno: &s;ed nec ad eum ambiget ullus indignus, ubi nullus permittetur e&s;&s;e ni&s;i dignus:</HI> &s;aith <HI>Austin, de Civit. Dei, li. ult. cap. ult.</HI> Only I mu&s;t crave this of the Reader, that my confe&s;&s;ed weakne&s;s be no prejudice to Gods truth: and that he will not judge of the cau&s;e by the per&s;on, nor take the name or per&s;on for a fault; which is the thing that the ancient Chri&s;tians did &s;o deprecate of the Pagans, and therefore I hope every Chri&s;tian will grant. And I mu&s;t al&s;o de&s;ire that want of &s;mooth and plea&s;ing words may not be judged the want of truth. <HI>Enimvero di&s;&s;oluti e&s;t pectoris in rebus &s;eriis quaerere voluptatem, &amp; cum tibi &s;it ratio cum male &s;e habentibus atque aegris, &s;on<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s auribus infundere dulciores, non medicinam vulneribus admovere: inquit</HI> Arnobius <HI>li. 1. adv. Gent.</HI> p. 49. I confe&s;s I do deeply compa&s;&s;ionate ordinary Chri&s;tians, when I think what a hard thing it is for them to di&s;cern the truth, among all the &s;mooth words and plau&s;ible argu|ments of Learned contenders. U&s;ually they think every mans tale good, till they hear the other; and then they think it bad: and at la&s;t when they &s;ee what fair glo&s;&s;es a Learned man can put on the wor&s;t cau&s;e, they are ready to run into the other extream, and to believe or regard nothing that they &s;ay. As <HI>Minutius Faelix</HI> &s;aith, [<HI>Altius mov<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">or de toto genere di&s;putandi: quod plerum&abque; pro di&s;&s;erentium viribus &amp; eloquentiae pote&s;tate, etiam perspicuae veritatis conditio mutetur, Id accidere pernotum est auditorum facilitate, qui dum verborum lenocinio a rerum intentionibus avocantur, &s;ine delectu a&s;&s;entiuntur dictis omnibus, nec a rectis fal&s;a &s;ecernunt, ne&s;cientes ine&s;se &amp; in in|credibili verum, &amp; in veri&s;imili mendacium. Itaque qu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;aepius a&s;severationibus credunt, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">o frequentius a peritioribus arguuntur: &s;ic a&s;&s;idue temeritate decepti, culpam judicii tran&s;|ferunt ad incerti querelam, ut damnatis omnibus malint univer&s;a &s;u&s;pendere, quam de fallacibus judicare.</HI>] But let &s;uch at lea&s;t hold fa&s;t the Foundation, and remember that we are all agreed in that.</P>
<P>The Reader that I expect &s;hould profit by the&s;e Writings, mu&s;t neither be u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">|terly unlearned, nor &s;o learned as your &s;elf. For the former are not yet capable of it; and the later are beyond it, and will hardly learn from any but the more learn|ed. It is the younger &s;ort of Students who&s;e edification I intend: who are neither quite above, nor below my in&s;tructions; nor &s;o engaged to a Party or Opinion, but that their mindes lye open to any evidence of Truth. <HI>Praevent<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s enim fal&s;ae opinionis errore humanus auditus, ad veri rationem percipiendam, durus &amp; perdifficilis invenitur, quanti&s;cunque te&s;tibus urgeatur. Mavult enim pravi dogmatis &s;ententiam, quae &s;emel infectus est, perver&s;us vindicare, quam hanc <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">andem tantis divinarum humanarum&abque; legum authoritatibus refutatam &s;alubrius immutare: inquit</HI> Vigilius <HI>contra Eutich.</HI> li. 1. <HI>initio.</HI></P>
<PB N="3" REF="12">
<P>La&s;tly, If you &s;hould be in the right and I in the wrong in any one Philo&s;o|phical Controver&s;ie, I mu&s;t expect that the Reader do not thence conclude, that you are right in your Theology. And I could with that you had &s;o mean thoughts of your Philo&s;ophy, as that you might not build your Theology on it too much; nor think much the better of your Writings, or of your &s;elf. For doubtle&s;s when the Canon of a Council forbad the reading of Heathens Books, the&s;e things were not &s;o highly valued as now. I approve not of that extream neither: but &s;hall conclude with that &s;erious exclamation of <HI>Ahenagoras (Legat&punc; per Chri&s;tian.</HI> p. 13, 14.) <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 2.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>Pag. 133. M^r <HI>K.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>FOr the fuller opening of this particular, I will be content to make &s;ome Digre&s;sion from your Book, and to &s;hew 1. That there can be no new immanent act in God, again&s;t M</HI>^r Baxter. 2. <HI>That there is &s;omewhat like Ju&s;tification in that immanent act of God, where|by he decrees from eternity to ju&s;tifie and condemn men. And 3. that yet that immanent act cannot be &s;tiled Ju&s;tification; nor is it meant &s;o by Dr.</HI> Twi&s;&s;e <HI>or Mr.</HI> Pemble <HI>that I know; and &s;o that Ju&s;tification is not from eternity: and then I &s;hall return to you,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 2.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> YOur Digre&s;&s;ion, methinks, is very &s;udden, and the occa&s;ion to a &s;tranger hardly di&s;cernable: Its like it was the uncouth apparition of &s;ome ruling wight of another Orb, which made upon your intellect that &s;trange impre&s;&s;ion, which cau&s;ed you to reel thus out of your way, and lead you unhappily into this private path, or rather bewildred you in this Maze where we now finde you. But whoever led you in, charity commands me to do my part to help you ou<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, or at lea&s;t to warn others that they do not follow you.</P>
<P N="1">1. As to your fir&s;t undertaking, I confe&s;s it was very ingenuou&s;ly done, to &s;ay, You will do it [again&s;t Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI>] and not [again&s;t his doctrine or opinion,] acknowledging afterwards that I deny not your Conclu&s;ion. But I am u&s;ed to Di&s;pute again&s;t Doctrines, and not Per&s;ons: and therefore will give you the better in this.</P>
<P N="2">2. Your &s;econd undertaking is more admirable then the fir&s;t. For I have met with &s;ome be&s;ides you that dare adventure on the former, but never man that dur&s;t attempt the later. Is it not enough for you to prove Gods Decree of ju&s;tifying to have &s;omewhat like Ju&s;tification? but you mu&s;t al&s;o prove, that the Decree both to ju&s;tifie and <HI>condemn,</HI> hath &s;omewhat like Ju&s;tification? If the Decree to condemn a man have &s;omewhat like ju&s;tifying him, then the Decree to torment him in hell hath &s;omewhat like glorifying him: and the Decree to kill, hath &s;omething in it like quickening him. You mu&s;t fly to &s;ome general point of &s;i|militude, or to the Lord <HI>Brookes</HI> doctrine, that all things are One, to make this good. But if it were but your over&s;ight, then I hope hereafter you will be more
<PB N="4" REF="13"> compa&s;&s;ionate to your Brethren, and no more &s;o &s;olemnly call men to [&s;ee the hand of heaven, in the pompous di&s;play of their folly, to appear mo&s;t ridiculous; and to adore the hand of God in infatuating their parts, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>] as you do by Mr. <HI>Goodwin</HI> for a &s;maller mi&s;take then yours. Alas what man &s;o Learned and accu|rate, as to be free from all over&s;ights.</P>
<P N="3">3. But indeed Sir I cannot &s;o ea&s;ily excu&s;e your next errour, annexed to the third part of your undertaken-task; where you &s;ay [Nor is it &s;o meant by Dr. <HI>Twi&s;s</HI> or Mr. <HI>P<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">mble</HI> that I know.] What is it that is not &s;o meant by them? Why that this Immanent act can be &s;tiled Ju&s;tification. You have boldly ventured to write thus: and I will be bold to try how well. Either its true, or not true that they &s;o meant: If true, and undeniably apparent in the Writings of one of them, if not both, and oft repeated by him, and yet Mr. <HI>K.</HI> knoweth it not, why then he doth not only write before he knows, and Vindicate men before he under&s;tand whether they are guilty or innocent, but makes it the great motive of his underta|king, as [<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ot having the patience to &s;ee &s;o worthy Divines &s;o unworthily hand|led.] If in the mi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;t of his impatience he knew not this, then it &s;eems I am not alone ignorant of the bu&s;ine&s;s that I meddle with. But I will lay it open to the Judgement of the Reader, whether the thing be true or fal&s;e? and whether you might not with le&s;s learning have known this if you would? and ought not to have known the cau&s;e before &s;o zealous a Vindication.</P>
<P>D^r <HI>Twi&s;s Vind. Grat.</HI> li. 1. part 2. &sect;. 25. p. (<HI>vol<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">min) 272, 273. Sic &s;cribit [Omnis actualis justificatio e&s;t justificatio, &amp; omnis ju&s;tificatio &s;impliciter dicta congruenter ex|ponenda e&s;t de ju&s;tificatione actuali. Nam Analogum per &s;e po&s;itum &s;tat pro &s;amo&s;iori &s;ignificato.] [Sed libet his paulisper immorari. Quaenam erit illa peccatorum Remi&s;&s;io quae fidem con&s;equetur; &amp; quam oporteat Spiritus &s;ancto acceptam referre? Remi&s;&s;io enim peccatorum, &s;i quidditatem inspicias, nihil aliud e&s;t quam aut Punitionis Negatio, aut Volitionis puniendi negatio. Sit ergo peccata Remittere, nihil aliud quam nolle punire. At hoc nolle punire, ut actus immancus in Deo, fuit ab aeterno, nec fidem con&s;equitur,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Quod vero operatione Spiritus &s;ancti nobis ex hac parte, per fidem contingit, aliud e&s;&s;e non pote&s;t quam &s;en&s;us gratiae Dei,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Quare &s;iquid morte &s;ua nobis impetrat Chri&s;tus, quod ad peccatorum no&s;trorum Remi&s;sio|nem attineat, &s;en&s;um</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Are not Chri&s;ts Merits and the Spirits gifts here highly honoured?</NOTE> <HI>i&s;tum amoris Divini peccata no&s;tra remit|tentis, nobis impetret nece&s;se e&s;t. Et</HI> pag. 279. c. 1. [<HI>Nam ju&s;titia Chri&s;ti dicitur nobis imputari, &amp; merita ip&s;ius nobis applicari per fidem, non coram Deo, &s;ed apud con&s;cientias no&s;tras: quatenus per fidem generatur in cordibus no&s;tris &s;en&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s &amp; agnitio hujus &s;alutaris applicationis ex amore Dei quem ex fide gu&s;tamus; &amp; &s;piritualiter &s;entimus nos ju&s;tificantem, &amp; in filios &s;uos adoptantem, ex quo na&s;citur pax con&s;cientiae. Quare ante fidem haec Chri&s;ti ju&s;titia no|&s;tra &s;uit, quatenus ex intentione Dei patris &amp; Chri&s;ti mediatoris pro nobis prae&s;tita,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Sed advenicute fide quam in cordibus no&s;tris Sp &s;anctus accendit, tum demum agno&s;citur &amp; percipitur hic amor Dei erga nos in Chri&s;to Je&s;u. Unde dicitur ju&s;titia Chri&s;ti imputari nobis per fidem, quia non ni&s;i per fidem digno&s;citur a Deo nobis imputari: &amp; tum demum ju&s;tificari dicimur ejus generis ju&s;tificatione, at&abque; ab&s;olutione a peccatis no&s;tris, quae pacem ingenerat con&s;cientiis no&s;tris. Hoc autem duobus argumentis confirmo. 1. Quia per ju|&s;titiam Chri&s;ti non mod&ograve; a&s;sequimur remi&s;&s;ionem peccatorum, &s;ed &amp; fidem ip&s;am, at&abque; re|&s;ipi&s;centiam, hoc e&s;t, cordis circumci&s;ionem,</HI> Eph. 1. 3. <HI>ergo etiam ante fidem &amp; re&s;ipi|&s;centiam applicatur nobis ju&s;titia Chri&s;ti, utpote propter quam gratiam a&s;sequimur effica|cem ad credendum in Christum &amp; agendum paenitentiam. Alterum e&s;t, quia ju&s;tificatio &amp; ab&s;olutio, prout fignificant actum divinae voluntatis immanentem, &s;unt ab aeterno.
<PB N="5" REF="13"> Unius autem voluntatis notificatio externa, per modum ab&s;olutionis cuju&s;dam judicialis &amp; fore<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">fis, quae fit per verbum &amp; &s;piritum, pro tribunali con&s;cientiae uniu&s;cuju&s;&abque; haec e&s;t illa ju&s;titiae Chri&s;ti imputatio, item&abque; ju&s;tificatio &amp; remi&s;&s;io atque ab&s;olutio quae fidem con&s;equitur.] Et cont. praefat.</HI> p. 18. b. <HI>Extra controver&s;iam e&s;t remi&s;&s;ionem peccatorum prout e&s;ta actus in Deo immanens antecedere no&s;tram fidem &amp; re&s;ipi&s;centiam: Nobis vere non ni&s;i per fidem innote&s;cit, cujus etiam fiducia multo adhuc confirmatior evadit per re|&s;ipi&s;centiam.</HI>]</P>
<P><HI>Lib. 1. Part.</HI> 2. p. 272. [<HI>Ju&s;tificationem ver&ograve; &amp; Reconciliationem pro codem haberi ab Arminio (quod &amp; verum e&s;t) &amp;c.</HI> And he oft maintaineth the eternity of Re|conciliation.</P>
<P><HI>Lib. 2. P.</HI> 2. pag. 434. [<HI>Ergo etiam ante fidem Deus nobis reconciliatus e&s;t: neque enim ni&s;i jam reconciliatus &amp; propitius gratificatur nobis fidem. Quid quod</HI> remi&s;&s;io peccatorum <HI>&amp; acceptatio no&s;tri,</HI> Non ni&s;i actus internos &amp; immanentes <HI>in Deo no|tant: cujus generis actiones non &s;uboriuntur Deo de novo.] Lege ult. &amp; postea [Juxta i&s;ta di&s;tinguere poterimus de reconciliatione dupliciter dicta: Nam &amp; Deus reconciliavit nos &s;ibi in Chri&s;to quoad rei veritatem: &amp; in mini&s;tris &s;uis po&s;uit verbum reconciliationis, quoad eju&s;dem praetio&s;ae veritatis evidentiam &amp; manife&s;tationem. Sic cum inimici e&s;&s;emus dicimur reconciliati fui&s;&s;e Deo quoad rei veritatem: quod tamen non ni&s;i per Evangelij praedicationem fit qu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ad eju&s;dem veritatis patefactionem &amp; &s;alutarem communicationem.] Et</HI> p. 433. [<HI>At A<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">minius applicationem remi&s;&s;ionis peccatorum, ita interpretari videtur, ut per applicationem fiat, &amp; jam qua&s;i de novo e&s;&s;e incipiat: qua&s;i vero non requiratur, ut jam antea exi&s;tat quod applicandum e&s;t. Nobis vero &s;ic in&s;tituendum videtur. Chri&s;tus morte &s;ua nobis procuravit redemtionem a peccatis, cum Deo reconciliationem, &amp; pecca|torum omnium remi&s;&s;ionem; quae quidem per pradicationem Evangelij &amp; per fidem, nobis applicantur, non ut &s;int, &s;ed ut nobis innote&s;cant. Nam rationem omnem &s;uperat quomodo applicari po&s;&s;it illud quod nondum e&s;t,</HI> &amp;c.] Pag. 434. <HI>No&s;tra vero interpretatio &s;ic pro|cedit: Chri&s;tus nobis acqui&s;ivit morte &s;ua redemptionem effica<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">em &amp; actualem, id e&s;t, actualem peccatorum remi&s;&s;ionem, &amp; reconciliationem cum Deo. Applicantur autem i&s;ta per praedicationem Evangelij, non ut de novo fiant, &s;ed ut nobis innote&s;cant,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>At in|quies, actualis Remi&s;&s;io peeatorum e&s;t ip&s;a Ju&s;tificatio: Ju&s;tificatio &s;equitur fidem: nam fide ju&s;tificamur: ergo nomine peccata remittuntur antequam credat. Respondeo, Cum docet Apo&s;tolus nos fide ju&s;tificari, nihil aliud ex in&s;tituto docet, quam nos ju&s;tifi|cari per &s;anguinem Chri&s;ti, &s;ive propter Chri&s;tum crucifixum.</HI>] And in the Index he owns it, that <HI>Remi&s;&s;io actualis e&s;t Ju&s;tificatio:</HI> and therefore we may take what he &s;aith of remi&s;&s;ion as meant of Ju&s;tification.</P>
<P>The like <HI>Lib. 3. pag. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">8. &amp; lib. 1. p. 2. pag.</HI> 272. which we before cited part of [<HI>Nec &s;ane occurrit &s;pecies aliqua rationis, cur reconciliatio cogatur in ordinem cum impe|tratione remi&s;&s;ionis, Ju&s;tificationis &amp; redemptionis, potius quam cum actuali Remi&s;&s;ione, Ju&s;tificatione &amp; Redemptione.</HI>] So that he puts actual Ju&s;tification with Remi&s;&s;ion and Reconciliation.</P>
<P>So <HI>contra</HI> Corvinum <HI>pag. 48. Et quid qua&s;o Adoptio est quam con&s;cquimur per fidem? Di<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">is e&s;se Acceptationem Dei. Quid autem e&s;t Acceptatio? Annon actus in Deo imma|nens? An vero actus Deo immanens &s;uperverit de novo?</HI>]</P>
<P>Its undeniable in this that <HI>Twi&s;&s;e</HI> doth not only affirm Remi&s;&s;ion and Reconci|liation and Adoption to be before we are born, immediatly on Chri&s;ts death; but al&s;o to be immanent Acts, and from Eternity: and though he be more &s;el|dom in thus u&s;ing the word [Ju&s;tification] yet he affirms Reconciliation and Remi&s;&s;ion (which he &s;aith are from Eternity) to be the &s;ame thing with Ju&s;ti|fication: yea he expre&s;ly entitleth that eternal immanent act [Ju&s;tification.]
<PB N="6" REF="14"> And did he only affirm Remi&s;&s;ion and Adoption and Reconciliation and Acce|ptation to be immanent acts and from eternity, I beleeve few &s;ober men will think it any better, then to affirm the &s;ame of Ju&s;tification. Yea he plainly intimates a di&s;tinction of Ju&s;tification: one from eternity or from Chri&s;ts death, and the other upon our believing: And therefore when he &s;peaks of Ju&s;tification by faith, he cals it [that &s;ort of Ju&s;tification] intimating the other &s;ort.</P>
<P>Now for Mr. <HI>Pemble,</HI> as he expre&s;ly maintains Ju&s;tification <HI>in foro Dei</HI> to be long before we are born, even on Chri&s;ts dying, &s;o that is all one to our purpo&s;e, as if he maintained it to be from eternity. And it were meet that &s;ome of you &s;hould have &s;hewed before now, what Tran&s;ient act it is by which particular &s;inners not yet born (and therefore not yet &s;inners) are ju&s;tified at Chri&s;ts death <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">I pray you Sir remember to do this in your next.</NOTE>? If it were (as Mr. <HI>Pemble</HI> intimates, I think) Gods accepting the Price, its worth the while to &s;hew that to be Temporal and Tran&s;ient, when Dr. <HI>Twi&s;s</HI> will have his accepting of man in Adoption to be immanent and eternal: But if you maintain Gods ju&s;tifying act at Chri&s;ts death (whether un|dertaken or &s;uffered) to be an immanent act, then it mu&s;t be before Chri&s;ts death, even eternal too. Mr. <HI>Pembles</HI> words are, <HI>Vind. Grat.</HI> p. 21. [But with a di&s;tinction of Ju&s;tification. 1. <HI>In foro Divino,</HI> in Gods &s;ight; and this goeth before all our &s;anctification. For even whil&s;t the Elect are unconverted, they are then actually ju&s;tified and freed from all &s;inne by the death of Chri&s;t: and God &s;o e&s;teems of them as free, and having accepted of that &s;atisfaction, is actu|ally reconciled to them. By this Ju&s;tification we are freed from the guilt of our &s;innes: and becau&s;e that is done away, God in due time proceeds to give us the grace of &s;anctification to free us from &s;innes corruption, &s;till inherent in our per|&s;ons. 2. <HI>In foro con&s;cientiae,</HI> in our own &s;en&s;e: which is but the Revelation and certain Declaration of Gods former &s;ecret act of accepting Chri&s;ts Righteou&s;ne&s;s to our Ju&s;tification.] So <HI>pag.</HI> 23. he &s;peaks again of the &s;ame Ju&s;tification <HI>in foro Dei,</HI> and &s;aith, that all the &s;innes of the Elect are actually pardoned, the Debt-Book cro&s;&s;ed, the hand-writing cancelled, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and that this grand tran&s;action between God and the Mediator Je&s;us Chri&s;t was concluded on and di&s;patcht in heaven long before we had any being either in nature or grace.] This phra&s;e of [di&s;patching it in heaven] makes me conjecture that it will prove &s;ome immanent act which they call Ju&s;tification at Chri&s;ts death. Lay all this together, and judge whether it be true that neither Dr. <HI>Twi&s;s</HI> nor M<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. <HI>Pemble,</HI> do mean that the immanent act can be &s;tiled Ju&s;tification. Or if it were true, whether Ju&s;tifica|tion before we are born, is not an errour fit to be re&s;i&s;ted. Indeed it is true that Mr. <HI>K.</HI> &s;aith, that neither Dr. <HI>Twi&s;s</HI> nor Mr. <HI>Pemble</HI> did ever mean, that [the Decree of God from eternity to ju&s;tifie and condemn men, is to be called Ju&s;ti|fication:] For the Decree to condemn men cannot well be called Ju&s;tification: But I believe this being but Mr. <HI>K.</HI> over&s;ight, he will not make u&s;e of it to ju&s;tifie his third Propo&s;ition.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>Mr. <HI>K.</HI> Digre&s;&s;ion. <HI>P.</HI> 1.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>VVHether there may be a new immanent Act in God?] <HI>To the fir&s;t, By an immanent act, we mean &s;uch as is terminated in the Agent; and not in any thing without it. Now that there can be any new immanent act in God, M.</HI> Baxter <HI>doth not
<PB N="7" REF="14"> adventure to affirm. Only he is plea&s;ed to &s;ay this; [That all immanent acts in God are eternall, he thinks is quite beyond our under&s;tanding to know.</HI> Aphor. <HI>pag. 174.] and he casteth out &s;omewhat to render it &s;u&s;pected,</HI> p. 173. <HI>which I &s;hall examine by and by.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 3.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> THey &s;ay of tho&s;e that are bred &s;ouldiers and u&s;ed to blood&s;hed and Vi|ctory, that the &s;tate mu&s;t make them fre&s;h work and finde them con|&s;tant imployment, or el&s;e they will make work and finde imployment for them|&s;elves. A Polemical Divine much u&s;ed to Di&s;putations, and thereby to the glory and Triumph of Victory, is, as it &s;eems by this Learned man, in the &s;ame ca&s;e. Mr. <HI>Goodwin</HI> found him not work enough, and rather then he would want more, he makes to him&s;elf an adver&s;ary (for he &s;aith, it is again&s;t Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI>) which here in the beginning he confe&s;&s;eth, makes not him&s;elf one, &s;o much as by a de|nial of his Propo&s;ition, or an affirming the contrary. Could you finde never a man in the world to deal with, that affirmed that there may be new immanent acts in God? If you could, they had been fitter for you to take in hand: For its like, they would purpo&s;ely have maintained that a&s;&s;ertion with &s;ome &s;hew of rea&s;on: If you could not; then your doctrine is &s;o univer&s;ally received, that I &s;hould think it &s;hould not need your Arguments now to &s;upport it: And then you may well conclude, as you do, that you have done little by this Di&s;pute; if you have but laboriou&s;ly maintained that which no man denies. But it &s;eems to me it was &s;ome rea&s;ons <HI>ab homine,</HI> from the per&s;on of your cho&s;en-&s;eigned adver&s;ary, rather then from the cau&s;e that allured or impelled you to this encounter.</P>
<P>As you well begin with &s;ome explication of your &s;en&s;e, &s;o will I al&s;o: and the rather &s;eeing I have little el&s;e to do. I de&s;ire the Reader therefore to under|&s;tand this much of my thoughts about the &s;ubject in hand, before I proceed further.</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>In generall,</HI> I am very &s;trongly per&s;waded that it is one of the greate&s;t &s;ins that a great part of Pious Learned Divines are guilty of, that they audaciou&s;ly adventure to di&s;pute and determine unrevealed things; and above all others, about the Nature and Actions of the Incomprehen&s;ible God. And that this is <HI>The</HI> very thing that hath divided, weakned and ruined the Church, more then any one thing, except plain contempt of God: And that it is under the wounds of the&s;e overwi&s;e mens Learning, that the poor Church hath lain bleeding many hundred years. Our Contentions, Envyings, Hear-burnings, by perver&s;e zeal, and much of all our warres and calamities, are long of this &s;inne in the&s;e men: That as the Romi&s;h Clergy are ju&s;tly e&s;teemed the greate&s;t Schi&s;maticks on earth, for their audacious and unmercifull additions to the Creed, making &s;uch a number of new Keys which heaven mu&s;t be opened and &s;hut by, which God never made: So are tho&s;e zealous Learned men, the cruel dividers of the Church, by occa&s;ioning our contentions, that will with boldne&s;s pry into things unrevealed, and with con&s;i|dence and peremptorine&s;s determine them, and then with long and &s;ubtil and fer|vent arguings maintain them, and make them &s;eem nece&s;&s;ary to the peace of the Church, or the &s;oundne&s;s of our faith. Scarce any one thing hath more fully di&s;co|vered to me the frailty and fearfull pravity of man, then this: To think, that &s;o &s;illy a worm &s;hould be no more acquainted with his own weakne&s;s, and the infinite di&s;tance between God and man; and &s;hould &s;o confidently think that he knows
<PB N="8" REF="15"> what he doth not know! yea and what he cannot know? yea and be angry with all the world that will not &s;ay, It's true; and will not believe that he knows what he pretends to know! If a man &s;hould per&s;wade me that I know how many An|gels are in heaven, or how many daies it will be till Chri&s;ts coming to Judgement, one would think it were no hard matter for me to know that I do not know any &s;uch thing. But if I &s;hould per&s;wade my &s;elf that I know it, and &s;hould expect that all others &s;hould believe that I know it, and would write Volumes to prove it, and count all tho&s;e ignotant or erroneous that will not believe me, or that will not &s;ay they know it when they do not, as well as I, whether this were the part of a man awake and in his wits, let others judge. How much more beyond our reach is the un&s;earchable nature of God, further then he hath revealed him&s;elf in his Works and Word, which, alas, affordeth us but a glimp&s;e of his backparts. Yea the wonder is yet greater that the&s;e &s;ame Learned Divines, when they are at a <HI>non|plus</HI> in their arguing, will plead mans ignorance and incapacity to put off their adver&s;ary and blame others for too bold enquiries and intru&s;ions into Gods &s;e|crets: and mo&s;t of our Reformers do &s;peak hardly of the Schoolmen for it (and very de&s;ervedly) and yet will not &s;ee the guilt in them&s;elves. No man &s;peaks more again&s;t his own natural inclination in this then I do: I feel as great a de&s;ire to Know, and to pry into any thing that others have di&s;puted, and as much natu|rall delight in the reading of the mo&s;t audacious &s;ubtil Di&s;puters, as others do. I was wont to &s;ay, I could get more out of <HI>Aquinas, Scotus, Durandus,</HI> and &s;uch like in a day, then out of many Ancient Fathers, and later Treati&s;ers, in a mone<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">h. But I finde that as de&s;ire to know was the beginning of our mi&s;ery, &s;o is it the continuance. Why do men fear them&s;elves no more, in that which innocent <HI>Adam</HI> was undone by? I finde that this bait of knowing things unrevealed, doth but entice men into vain hopes, and labours, and &s;elf-deluding promi&s;es, and flatter men into a plea&s;ant lo&s;s of time (and wor&s;e:) and in the end faileth all their expectations: and the Learned Di&s;puters come off as <HI>Adam</HI> did, with Gods acknowledgement that he was like God in knowing good and evil (Ironically, as &s;ome Divines think; or expre&s;&s;ing his unhappine&s;s plainly, as others.) Tho&s;e leaves of <HI>Bradwardine</HI> and <HI>Twi&s;s Vind.</HI> and <HI>de &s;cient. Med.</HI> &amp;c. which I was wont to reade with longing and delight, I confe&s;s I look on now with fear; and many Learned Schoolmen (&s;pecially on the fir&s;t Book of the <HI>Sentences</HI>) I read, as I hear men &s;wear or take Gods name lightly in their common talk; even &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ldom, un|willingly (looking for other matter) and with horrour. Yet how oft doth Dr. <HI>Twi&s;&s;e</HI> tell <HI>Arminius</HI> and D<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. <HI>Jackson</HI> of the &s;infulne&s;s, un&s;afene&s;s and uncertainty of departing from the Scrip<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">es in the&s;e high things, about the Nature and De|crees of God? And what <HI>Bradwardine</HI> excellently &s;aith, I de&s;ire the Reader to &s;ee in him, <HI>de Cau&s;a Dei, l. 1. c. 1. corol&punc;</HI> 32. B<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t e&s;pecially I de&s;ire the Reader to peru&s;e that excellent Epi&s;tle of <HI>Col<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ius</HI> in <HI>Beverovicius de Termino Vitae;</HI> which contains what I have a minde further to have &s;aid of this: with <HI>Gibieu&s;</HI>'s fir&s;t Chapt. <HI>de Libertate Dei (lib. 2. de lib.</HI>) which &s;hews how far God is above all our highe&s;t names and notions: and that <HI>Deus ab <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">llis <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">iber est:</HI> with much more a|gain&s;t the Doctrine that I oppo&s;e. See al&s;o <HI>Car<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. Contarenus de officio Ep<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;copi, ope|rum</HI> p. 410, 411. and what he citeth out of <HI>Dio<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">y&s;ius.</HI> And I intreat you to reade &s;eriou&s;ly that notable pa&s;&s;age, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 6. 3, 4, 5. where pride is &s;hewed to be the root, and &s;uppo&s;ed knowledge &s;aid to be b<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t Do<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ing, and they are &s;aid to know nothing, that thought they knew mo&s;t, and the &s;ad effects of all are ma|nife&s;ted.</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="9" REF="15">2. I do think that mo&s;t of our profound Di&s;putes, wherewith the Domini<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">ns and Je&s;uites, the Arminians and Antiarminians have Learnedly troubled the world, are guilty in part, of this hainous &s;inne before mentioned: and that the&s;e great Doctors do di&s;pute for the mo&s;t part of they know not what. I confe&s;s its u&s;ual with men that know little them&s;elves, to think that others know as little, and to mea&s;ure the knowledge of other men by their own: and &s;o its po&s;&s;ible I may undervalue the Learning of the&s;e men, becau&s;e having none my &s;elf, I cannot un|der&s;tand the largene&s;s of their capacities, and &s;ublimity of their &s;peculations. However I am &s;ure I am wi&s;er and righter in one point then I was: For when I &s;teeped my thoughts in their &s;peculations, and was my &s;elf of the &s;ame expre&s;s opi|nion with one of the parties, I thought that I begun to grow &s;omewhat wi&s;e my &s;elf; but now I know I was deceived, and it was my folly, and that I knew not what I thought I knew. And though I will be bolder to befool &s;uch a one as my &s;elf, then men of &s;uch &s;ublime incomprehen&s;ible knowledge; yet its my opinion that they are but men; and what a man is though I do not yet fully know, yet I am daily both &s;tudying and trying: and experience which i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> the teacher of fools, hath taught me this much of him; that he is no Deity; nor one of the Intelligen|ces that moveth or comprehendeth the orbs; that the wi&s;e&s;t are not &s;o wi&s;e as they would &s;eem, or as they imagine them&s;elves; that all their conceptions which they judge &s;o comprehen&s;ive are comprehended in the compa&s;s of a narrow skull, and there lodged in a puddle of &s;uch brains, and humours, that a little knock if it hit right may make the wi&s;e&s;t man an Ideot, and drive out all that profound Learning which M^r <HI>K.</HI> thinks is &s;o near kin to the knowledge of God. I confe&s;s of late I have accu&s;tomed my &s;elf to &s;uch mean though<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s of man and his imagina|tions, and &s;uch high thoughts of God, that I reade many of the profounde&s;t School Divines (whom yet in &s;ome re&s;pects I honour) as I hear children di&s;|cour&s;ing of State matters, or Theology; or as if I heard two di&s;puting in their &s;leep. The Serpent hath beguiled us as he did <HI>Eve,</HI> by drawing us from the &s;im|plicity that is in Chri&s;t. Vain Philo&s;ophy hath been the bait to deceive the Church: And &s;o we are judiciou&s;ly broken in pieces and ruined; and have learn|ed to our co&s;t to know good and evil. I think there is no hope of the Churches recovery but by returning to the primitive Chri&s;tian &s;implicity; and u&s;ing <HI>Ari|&s;totle</HI> as a help in Naturals, but not preferring him before Chri&s;t in the teaching of the highe&s;t &s;peculations of Theology, as if we mu&s;t go learn Gods nature of <HI>Ari&s;totle,</HI> where Chri&s;t leaveth us at a lo&s;s. When tho&s;e Learned men, who profe&s;&s;ing them&s;elves wi&s;e became&mdash;&s;hall become fools that they may be wi&s;e, and come quite back again to their <HI>cogno&s;ce teip&s;um,</HI> then they may know more of God then they yet do, and yet perceive that they know le&s;s then they thought they had known: and then their knowledge will edifie which now puf|feth up.</P>
<P N="3">3. I think that man can have no po&s;itive proper corception of God, at lea&s;t be&s;ides <HI>ens</HI> (which the Scoti&s;ts think proper) and that there is no word in humane language that can expre&s;s Gods nature in &s;trict propriety, but all our notions of him are &s;o exceeding imperfect, that they expre&s;s more of our ignorance then of our knowledge. <HI>White</HI> is bold to &s;ay (<HI>In&s;titut. Peripatet. l. 4. lect.</HI> 9, 10.) that none of the Names that we attribute to God, hath a notion which hath in God a formall object: and that that &s;cience is of all other the mo&s;t &s;ub<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ime and proper, which inquireth into the impropriety of the names that are &s;poken of God, and de|nieth them all as to him.</P>
<P N="4"><PB N="10" REF="16">4. I think that there is no &s;uch thing in God <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> Under&s;tanding, Knowledge, Will, Intention, Decree, Election, Love, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> as the&s;e are by men conceived of, and expre&s;&s;ed: And that man knows not what it is in God formally which the&s;e terms are u&s;ed by him to expre&s;s. And that it is a farre le&s;s improper &s;peech to &s;ay, that the Firmament is a nut&s;hell, or the &s;un is a glow-worm, or to deno|minate the rea&s;on of men from the apprehen&s;ions of a fly or a worm, then to at|tribute Under&s;tanding, Will, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> to God. What the impropriety is, we &s;hall &s;peak to more anon.</P>
<P N="5">5. Therefore all tho&s;e rea&s;onings concerning Gods Nature or Acts, which are drawn meerly from the nature and acts of man, as concluding from a &s;uppo&s;ed Analogy of attribution (much more a formal Identity) is a vain deceitfull rea|&s;oning.</P>
<P N="6">6. Yet as Scripture &s;peaks of God in terms improper, according to mans ca|pacity, and fetcht from mans nature and acts, &s;o mu&s;t we both conceive and &s;peak: that is, not believing that the&s;e are proper expre&s;&s;ions or conceptions of God, but that there is that in God which we cannot now more fitly conceive of then under the&s;e notions, or fi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">lier expre&s;s then in the&s;e terms. God hath nothing properly called Knowledge or Will&punc; but he hath or is that which man cannot fit|lier expre&s;s or conceive of then under the notion of Knowledge and Will: But what it is, God knows. We mu&s;t &s;ay, God knows, and God willeth; and God mu&s;t &s;ay &s;o to us: For el&s;e man could not hear or &s;peak of God, if God conde|&s;cended not to the language and capacity of man. <HI>Camero</HI> &s;aith, even of our mo&s;t perfect &s;tate of glory, that <HI>Frui Deo nil aliud e&s;t quam potenti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, &s;apientiae, bo|nitatis divinae fructum percipere, quem creaturae modus &amp; ratio ferre pote&s;t,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Et vi|detur Deus experiundo quis &s;it</HI> (1. Jo 3.) <HI>Et qualem &s;e erga nos prae&s;tet, caeterum (quic|quid dictitent &s;chola&s;tici, homines acuti quidem, &s;ed in hoc argumento nimis acuti, invi|&s;ibilis e&s;t vel Angelis, quibus ad Dei con&s;pectum nulla peccati labes, &s;ola naturae imb<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">eilli|tas&punc; (creaturae enim &s;unt) aditum interclu&s;it. Praelect. de Verb. Dei. Gla&s;c.</HI> c. 7. p. 455. I am more certain that even the eye of our under&s;tanding hath no direct and proper &s;ight of God, while we are in the fle&s;h.</P>
<P N="7">7. Yet the&s;e attributions of Knowledge and Will, to God, are not fal&s;e|hoods, for there is really &s;omewhat in God which the&s;e are made the impro|per expre&s;&s;ions of. Equivocals and Analogies are not <HI>eo nomine</HI> fal&s;e ex|pre&s;&s;ions.</P>
<P N="8">8. I am &s;o farre from thinking that it is by Analogy of Attribution (as the Schoolmen call it) that Knowledge, Will, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> are attributed to God and the creature; that I think the&s;e a&s;cribed to God by an exceeding farre fetcht meta|phor, further then (as I &s;aid) if I &s;hould call Heaven a nut&s;hell; there being a thou&s;and fold more likene&s;s between the&s;e, then between Gods Knowledge and Will, and mans: For between finite and Infinite there is no proportion. Yea I will not undertake to prove that the <HI>Ratio homonymiae</HI> is not in Us, only, and not at all in the Things.</P>
<P N="9">9. Yet no doubt, the thing meant by Knowledge and Will when attributed to God, is not only, as many &s;ay, mo&s;t eminently in God, but is &s;olely in God; that which is called knowledge and will in man being not the &s;ame thing, but <HI>toto genere diver&s;um.</HI> But yet the conception that we have of Gods Knowledge and Will is but improper derived from the &s;uppo&s;ed <HI>&s;imile, viz.</HI> our own under&s;tand|ing and will, which repre&s;enteth it with exceeding imperfection. So that the terms of Knowledge, Will, Decree, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> are &s;poken fir&s;t and properly
<PB N="11" REF="16"> of the creature, and thence improperly of God.</P>
<P N="10">10. Yet I acknowledge that though all the&s;e terms of Attribution, as to God, are exceeding improper, yet there are degrees of impropriety; &s;ome being more improper then others are: And &s;o I doubt not but that the terms that are taken from humane pa&s;&s;ions and imperfections are more improperly applied to God, then the&s;e forementioned of Under&s;tanding and Will, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>And thus I have told you &s;ome of my thoughts, that M^r <HI>K.</HI> may know on what terms to deal with me, and not contend with one who&s;e minde he under&s;tand|eth not.</P>
<P>And as to his de&s;cription of Immanent Acts, I deny that there is any &s;uch thing as an Act in God terminated in him&s;elf, &s;uppo&s;ing that you &s;peak not of a meer objective termination (as I know you do not; For el&s;e you would call ma|ny of the&s;e tran&s;ient acts, as having an extrin&s;ick object.) As I acknowledge no certainty of a proper Act in God, &s;o I acknowledge no po&s;itive termination of that which in him we call an Act; and we call it immanent but in that negative &s;en&s;e which the later clau&s;e of your de&s;cription doth expre&s;s. We are like to make a good di&s;pute of it, when I am forced to deny the &s;ubject, as being a <HI>Chymaera.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. IN the mean time, out of the re&s;pect I bear to the memory of Dr.</HI> Twi&s;&s;e, <HI>I can|not forbear to &s;ay, that Mr.</HI> Baxter <HI>had better con&s;ulted his own honour if he had &s;aid nothing to the di&s;paragement of that Reverend and Renowned Doctor: of whom he &s;peaks very &s;leightingly more then once in his otherwi&s;e excellent Treati&s;e of</HI> Infant-Bapti&s;m, <HI>and in all his other Books: In which I could wi&s;h there were not &s;ome|what of the Doctrinal part not an&s;wering that of the Devotional What Dr.</HI> Twi&s;&s;e <HI>hath &s;aid of Ju&s;tification from eternity, upon this ground, that there can be no new imma|nent act in God, and how much &s;ome in the Synod &s;aid again&s;t him, and how little he replied for him&s;elf matters not: he was now grown old,</HI>
<Q><L>Et videas fe&s;&s;os Rhadamanthon &amp; Aeacon annis,</L>
<L>Et Minoa queri&mdash;</L></Q>
<Q><L><HI>Like enough,</HI> Mul<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">um mutatus ab illo</L>
<L>Hectore qui redit exuvias indutus Achillis.</L></Q> <HI>When he beat</HI> Arminius, Corvinus, Tilenus, Penottus, Bellarmine, <HI>Dr.</HI> Jack|&s;on, <HI>and I know not how many more out of the field;</HI> &amp; &s;olus vacua dominatus arena <HI>left them all bleeding, as Mr.</HI> Goodwin <HI>would have &s;aid, at the feet of his Wri|tings. It may be he was now at la&s;t, but</HI> magni nominis umbra, <HI>but who&s;e very name really did mo&s;t of the &s;ervice, and I am &s;ure was that formidable thing to the learned Adver&s;ary: But as old as he was, I que&s;tion not but he could have e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;ily made this good, There is no new Immanent act in God] again&s;t all that oppo&s;ed him in the Synod, and Mr.</HI> Baxter <HI>to boot: and I would fain hear any of them all that oppo&s;ed him, to give a &s;atisfactory an&s;wer but to this one Argu|ment.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="section">
<PB N="12" REF="17">
<HEAD>&sect;. 4.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. YOu need not argue me to a higher re&s;pect to Dr. <HI>Twi&s;&s;e</HI> then I have ever manife&s;ted, except you would have me &s;ay, He was a God, or an Angel, or an Infallible man.</P>
<P N="2">2. If you cannot forbear, as you &s;ay, its pity you &s;hould be hindered: Men and women mu&s;t &s;peak when their li&s;t is &s;o great. Who can hold that which will away?</P>
<P N="3">3. I confe&s;s that I did not much con&s;ult mine Honour in that writing. El&s;e you had not found your &s;elf work as you have done in the&s;e leaves. If you mean the Honour of my Hone&s;ty, your proof mu&s;t do more to the determination then your a&s;&s;ertion: If you mean the Honour of my Learning, do not you know well enough, how little I have to con&s;ult? He that hath nothing, hath nothing to lo&s;e.</P>
<P N="4">4. [Sleightingly] is a word that will &s;tretch, and therefore I will not charge you with untruth. In one mans &s;en&s;e, he &s;leights a man that cals him [that famous excellent Divine:] but in another mans, &s;leighting &s;ig|nifieth the e&s;teeming of a man below his worth, and expre&s;&s;ing &s;o much, or &s;etting light by a man. I am mi&s;erably troubled with tho&s;e kinde of people that cannot endure [&s;leighting] as they call it, above all folks in the world. (I u&s;e to call them plainly, Proud people, here in the Countrey; but if I were to talk to Learned men I would u&s;e more manners.) They think I &s;leight them, if I do not applaud them, or complement with them, or if I commend them not with &s;o loud a voice as they expect (and they are a people that are never low in their expectations:) or if I do but prai&s;e another above them, or &s;peak to ano|ther before them, or be &s;hort with them (when I am bu&s;ie) when they look for a longer more re&s;pectfull di&s;cour&s;e; yea if my Hat &s;hould be over mine eyes that I &s;ee them not, or my memory &s;o fail me as that I forget them; the&s;e and abundance more I am guilty of &s;leighting every day, that I am now grown accu&s;tomed to the vice, and &s;hamele&s;s in hearing it charged upon me. But I &s;u&s;pect that my &s;leight|ing Dr. <HI>Twi&s;&s;e</HI> con&s;i&s;teth in my &s;uppo&s;ing him to erre, and telling the world &s;o: that is, in taking him to be a man: for <HI>h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">manum e&s;t errare:</HI> and for &s;aying he knew but in part, that is, that he was not glorifi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d on earth by perfection. If you could have charged me with any more then this, would you not have done it? I &s;ay, would you not? when the Vindication of this Reverend man was the end of your encountring me? and it boyled &s;o hot on your &s;tomack, that [you could not forbear: you had not the patience to &s;ee &s;o Worthy men &s;o unworthily hand|led.] Yea your &s;elf affirm that which is his doctrine to be untrue, and yet I &s;leight him for &s;aying &s;o! Lay this with the commanded Adoration of the foot&s;teps, and it &s;eems, it is high matters indeed that you expect. I doubt, by this, that you will &s;ay, I &s;light <HI>you</HI> before I have done, either becau&s;e I prai&s;e you not enough, or becau&s;e I take you not for infallible and indefectible, or becau&s;e I value Dr. <HI>Twi&s;&s;e</HI> or Mr. <HI>Pemble</HI> &s;o very, very, very farre before you; when yet I am accu&s;ed of &s;lighting them. Sir, the&s;e Reverend m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n, I doubt not, are perfected Saints in heaven, and hate pride &s;o much, that if they know it, they will give little thanks to him that will contend for the honour of their Infallibility, yea or for the guilding over any of their errours&punc; much le&s;s, if their honour &s;hould be made a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;nare to&punc; the entangling of the godly, and a means to the promoting the
<PB N="13" REF="17"> Kingdom of darkne&s;s, and oppo&s;ing that Truth which they love better then their Honours, and the di&s;honouring of that God who&s;e glory is their fe|licity.</P>
<P>Yea let me tell you that I take my &s;elf bound in con&s;cience to &s;ay more then ever I have yet &s;aid, and that is thi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> [All young Students that will deigne to take advice from &s;o mean a man as I, as ever you would pre&s;erve your graces and con|ver&s;ations, pre&s;erve&punc; your Judgements; and as ever you would maintain the Do|ctrine of Chri&s;t, take heed of the Errors of the Antinomians: and as ever you would e&s;cape the &s;nare of Antinomiani&s;m, take heed of the&s;e principal Articles of it fol|lowing: [That Chri&s;ts &s;atisfaction is ours <HI>qu&agrave; prae&s;tita,</HI> before the Application; and that &s;o far, as that we are actually Pardoned, Ju&s;tified, Reconciled and A|dopted by it before we were born, much more before we believe: yea that Adopti|on and Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;in are immanent acts in God, and &s;o are from eternity, even before any death of Chri&s;t, or efficacy of it: That pardon of &s;in is nothing but <HI>Ve<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">e non Punire:</HI> That Ju&s;tification by faith is nothing but Ju&s;tification <HI>in foro con&s;cientia,</HI> o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> the &s;en&s;e of that in our hearts, which was really ours from eternity, or from Chri&s;ts death, or both: That ju&s;tifying faith is the feeling or appre|hen&s;ion of Gods eternal Love, Remi&s;&s;ion and Adoption.] I &s;ay, take heed of the&s;e ma&s;ter-Points of Antinomiani&s;m: And as ever you would avoid the&s;e, take heed how you receive them on the reputation and plau&s;ible words of any Writer: and e&s;pecially of D^r <HI>Twi&s;s,</HI> who is full of &s;uch pa&s;&s;ages, and being of greater learning and e&s;teem then others is liker to mi&s;lead you. For you know, if you receive the&s;e then you mu&s;t receive the r<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;t, if you di&s;cern the concatenation. For if all your &s;ins were pardoned as &s;oon as Chri&s;t died, then what need you pray for pardon, or Repent or Believe or be Baptized for pardon? then God loved you as well when you were his enemies, as &s;ince; and then how can you be re&s;trained from &s;in by fear? <HI>&amp;c.</HI> And that you may know I &s;peak not this in &s;lighting of the D<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ctor, as Mr. <HI>K.</HI> chargeth me. 1. I profe&s;s to do it mainly for Gods glory and Truth, and for the love of &s;ouls. 2. I take my &s;elf the rather bound to it, becau&s;e I was once drawn my &s;elf to &s;ome of the&s;e opinions by the meer high e&s;ti|mation of Mr. <HI>P<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">mble</HI> and Dr. <HI>Twi&s;&s;e.</HI> 3. I profe&s;s &s;till mo&s;t highly to love and reverence the names of the&s;e two ble&s;&s;ed excellent men, as formerly I never honou|red any two men more. For Dr. <HI>Twi&s;s,</HI> I am more beholden to his Writings for that little knowledge I have then almo&s;t any one mans, be&s;ides: and for Mr. <HI>Pem|ble,</HI> for ought I can &s;ee in his Book of Ju&s;tification, he revoked this &s;ame errour which in his <HI>Vindic. Grat.</HI> he hath delivered: &s;ure I am, no two mens Writings have been more in my hands, and few mens nam<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s are yet &s;o highly honoured in my heart.</P>
<P>This much I take my &s;elf bound to publi&s;h for a common warning. And I would further advi&s;e all to take heed how they entertain Dr. <HI>Twi&s;s</HI>&punc;s doctrine about the cau&s;e of &s;in; of which I &s;hall be ready to give my rea&s;on when I have a call; but will not now digre&s;s &s;o far.</P>
<P N="5">5. For your good wi&s;h [that my Books had not &s;omething in the Doctrinal part not an&s;wering the devotional] I thank you. But, alas, ignorance and errour will not be healed with a wi&s;h: Many a year have I &s;tudied and praied again&s;t them, and yet they &s;tick by me &s;till. But had I erred in the Foundation, it would have &s;poiled my Devotion: for <HI>non recte vivitur, ubi de Deo non bene creditur:</HI> And I had rather be defective in le&s;&s;er doctrinals, then in Devotion. And though I am as confident that you erre in &s;ome of your Doctrinals (as I &s;hall anon mani|fe&s;t)
<PB N="14" REF="18"> as you are of my erring, yet I heartily wi&s;h your Devotion be as good as your Judgement in Doctrine; and I think I wi&s;h you a greater ble&s;&s;ing then you wi&s;hed me.</P>
<P N="6">6. I do not well reli&s;h your exceeding coldne&s;s in Gods cau&s;e, who are &s;o hot for man: When it is for the honour of your Learned Brethren, [you have not patience, you cannot forbear.] But what Dr. <HI>Twi&s;&s;e</HI> hath &s;aid for Ju&s;tification from Eternity, on the ground that there is no new immanent act in God, this you &s;ay, <HI>Matters not:</HI> Is it a phra&s;e be&s;eeming a Preacher of Chri&s;ts Truth to &s;ay, [<HI>It matters not?</HI>] When that Truth is contradicted in &s;o high a Point? and the &s;ouls of men, and the peace of the Church &s;o much endangered? A <HI>G<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">llio</HI> might better have &s;poke thus. <HI>England</HI> hath not &s;ped &s;o well by the Antinomians of late, as that any knowing friend of it, &s;hould &s;ay, It matters not, when &s;uch great Di|vines promote their cau&s;e.</P>
<P N="7">7. And where you al&s;o &s;ay, that [it matters not what &s;ome in the Synod &s;aid again&s;t him, and how little he &s;aid for him&s;elf.] I am not of your minde. 1. Is it only the <HI>ve&s;tigia Doctoris Twi&s;&s;i &amp; M. K.</HI> that are to be adored? You &s;hall give me leave to honour you much, and the Doctor more, but the A&s;&s;embly more then either of you. 2. I do not think the Doctor was &s;o weak, or at lea&s;t a good cau&s;e &s;o friendle&s;s in the A&s;&s;embly, but that him&s;elf or &s;ome other would have done &s;omething con&s;iderable to the ju&s;tification of his cau&s;e, if it had been ju&s;ti|fiable. 3. I will be bold to ask you, the next time I &s;ee you, whether all your heat and impatience for unworthy handling or &s;lighting the Doctor be not meant again&s;t the A&s;&s;embly as well as me? or if not, Whether it be not re&s;pect of per|&s;ons that made the difference? or rather the &s;ecuring of your reputation, which you might think would be elevated by a Victory over others, or at lea&s;t lo&s;e no|thing, though the per&s;on were &s;o contemptible, as not to adde to your glory; but by an oppo&s;ition to the A&s;&s;embly it might have been da&s;ht in pieces? Or if the Antinomians being que&s;tioned by the A&s;&s;embly &s;hall alleadge Dr. <HI>Twi&s;s</HI>'s words (frequently and plainly uttered) for their Defence; and the Doctors cau&s;e be|ing hereupon que&s;tioned &s;hall fall without any ju&s;tification; I pray you tell me, Whether there may not be the &s;ame nece&s;&s;ity for <HI>us</HI> to take notice of his Errours as the A&s;&s;embly? and whether after them we may not do it (while we honour his worth as much as I &s;till do) without &s;lighting or wronging him. It is more di&s;honour to be Que&s;tioned by an A&s;&s;embly and come off unju&s;tified, then to be judged to mi&s;take by &s;o contemptible a per&s;on as I.</P>
<P N="8">8. Where you &s;peak of [his very Name doing mo&s;t of the &s;ervice.] I do not under&s;tand what &s;ervice you mean. I know you mean not the &s;ervice done in his Writings: And &s;ure you dare not mean [the &s;ervice done by the A&s;&s;embly:] for that were to make them a contemptible A&s;&s;embly indeed, if a mans Name, yea <HI>magni nominis umbra,</HI> did mo&s;t of their &s;ervice: And it were to think as ba&s;ely of their &s;ervice as the wor&s;t Sectary doth, that I have met with. It were not worth &s;o much co&s;t, and &s;o many years pains, nor worthy the Acceptation of Parliament or People, if it were but the offspring of Dr. <HI>Twi&s;&s;e</HI>'s Name. But Sir we have received fruits that &s;hew they came from another cau&s;e then a name or the &s;hadow of a name. I confe&s;s I value their lea&s;t Catechi&s;m for children above all Mr. <HI>Kendall</HI>'s learned Labours, were they twenty times more of the &s;ame quality. I never heard but one Learned man &s;peak contemptuou&s;ly of the A&s;&s;embly, and his friends &s;ay it was becau&s;e he was not thought Worthy to be one of them (I ex|cept tho&s;e that were again&s;t them in the Warre; where heat of oppo&s;ition might
<PB N="15" REF="18"> occa&s;ion di&s;e&s;teem: But if this were Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s ca&s;e, yet methinks when he changed his Cau&s;e and Party, he &s;hould withall have changed his e&s;teem of the A&s;&s;embly.) But its likely that Mr. <HI>K.</HI> means that it was the Doctors Name that did mo&s;t of the &s;ervice of a Moderator; mo&s;t of his own part in the A&s;&s;embly: It may be &s;o: But if he had nothing to work by but his Name, yet had his cau&s;e been good, it would in that A&s;&s;embly have found &s;ome friends. But what you mean then by the following words, I do not well know, that his Name you are &s;ure [was that formidable thing to the Learned adver&s;ary.] Perhaps you mean your &s;elf, by the Learned adver&s;ary, of who&s;e fears I confe&s;s you might be &s;ure, and &s;o might know the Name or Word that did affright you: el&s;e I cannot imagine who you mean, except it were the Kings party or the Epi&s;copal Divines together: But for Epi&s;copacy, I know of no Di&s;putes that ever the A&s;&s;embly had upon it, and &s;o had no adver&s;aries in a di&s;puting way; at lea&s;t during Dr. <HI>Twi&s;s</HI>'s time. And for di&s;puting the Kings Cau&s;e, I think they did as little in it. Some cho&s;en men in the Treaties indeed di&s;puted again&s;t Epi&s;copacy, but with other weapons then Dr. <HI>Twi&s;&s;e</HI>'s Name. If you &s;hould mean that it was Dr. <HI>Twi&s;&s;e</HI>'s Name that made the Learned Epi&s;copal Divines have Reverend thoughts of the A&s;&s;embly, I mu&s;t tell you that there were in that A&s;&s;embly no &s;mall number of Divines of that ex|cellency for Learning, Piety and Mini&s;terial Ability, which might command Re|verence from the Learnede&s;t adver&s;aries of you all.</P>
<P N="9">9. But though his Name did all the &s;ervice; yet you [que&s;tion not but he could have ea&s;ily made it good, That there is no new immanent act in God, again&s;t, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>] It &s;eems by this that you think this the ea&s;ier to prove of the two: And indeed I am acquainted with none that are minded to op|po&s;e it.</P>
<P N="10">10. Nor is it rea&s;onable for you to &s;ay, that you [would fain have any of them all that oppo&s;ed him, to give a &s;atisfactory an&s;wer to your Argument,] when you know it was not in that Point that they oppo&s;ed him. Would you make more your adver&s;aaies again&s;t their will as well as me? or do you long for more honourable Antagoni&s;ts to cope with? And whats your Argu|ment?</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 5.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. IF there be any new immanent Act in God, it must be either of his Under|&s;tanding or his Will: Of his &V;nder&s;tanding there can be none: el&s;e mu&s;t he know &s;omewhat a new, which inferres he was not Omni&s;cient, knew not all before this new act of Knowledge: If of his W<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ll, then either this new act is for the better or wor&s;e or indifferent: If for the better, he was not ab&s;olutely perfect before, as being capable of bettering: If for the wor&s;e, he is not &s;o perfect &s;ince this act as he was before; which is to make him l<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;s perfect by his new act: If neither, then is this act &s;uch as might as well have been out as in: and then it is an imperfection to act &s;o im|pertinently. This &s;ame Argument as I take it made u&s;e of by Mr.</HI> Goodwin <HI>him&s;elf in a like ca&s;e, and therefore he will not be offended how highly &s;oever I value it as an irrefragable Demon&s;tration.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="section">
<PB N="16" REF="19">
<HEAD>&sect;. 5.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> REmember that I &s;ay not that your Doctrine is <HI>Untrue,</HI> but <HI>Uncertain.</HI> It may be po&s;&s;ibly as you &s;ay; but whether you can tell that it is &s;o, or prove it to be &s;o, I doubt. To your great Argument, I expect better proof of your <HI>major</HI> Propo&s;ition, which indeed hath none at all. Two things I expected you &s;hould have proved: 1. That God hath an Under&s;tanding and Will which act; properly &s;o called: or that you know what it is that is improperly called Gods Under&s;tanding and Will? 2. That God hath no immanent Act but of his Under&s;tanding or Will. To begin with the la&s;t: I will not &s;ay, <HI>datur tertium.</HI> For I dare not &s;ay properly <HI>dantur duo:</HI> But I will de&s;ire you to prove your <HI>major:</HI> and I think that in the &s;ame &s;en&s;e as God is &s;aid to have an Under&s;tanding and Will, for ought you know he may have other acts, which tho&s;e two notions will not expre&s;s. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">or 1. You are uncertain whether Angels may not have other fa|culties or acts-immanent, be&s;ides Under&s;tanding and Will: (If you &s;ay, you are &s;ure they have not, prove it:) and &s;o others may be a&s;cribed to God by Ana|logy from them, as the&s;e be by Analogy from man. You know perhaps how ma|ny &s;en&s;es you have your &s;elf: but how can you prove that no other creature hath a &s;ixth &s;en&s;e, which you are uncapable of knowing the name or nature of? So how know you but Angels may have powers or immanent acts be&s;ide Under&s;tanding and Willing, which you know nothing of for name or nature? Mu&s;t all Gods &s;uperiour creatures be needs mea&s;ured by poor man? How much more noble crea|tures hath God, then the&s;e below that dwell in du&s;t! 2. But if you were ac|quainted with all the Angels in heaven, and were at a certainty about the number or nature of their powers or acts, how prove you that God hath no other act then what Under&s;tanding and Willing doth expre&s;s? That one unconceivable perfect act in God, which <HI>Eminenter</HI> (by an unconceivable tran&s;cendent eminence) is <HI>Under&s;tanding and Willing,</HI> (yet but Analogically &s;o called) but properly and for|mally is neither, but &s;omewhat more excellent; is in all likelihood very re&s;train|edly or defectively expre&s;&s;ed by the&s;e two words; even as to the objective extent. How know we but that in &s;ome of Gods creatures, or at lea&s;t in God him&s;elf there may be &s;omething found be&s;ides Entity, Verity, Goodne&s;s; or any thing that is the object of Intellection or Volition, whereof no man had ever any concepti|on. However, is it not unlikely, yea a dangerous imagination, That the pow|ers or acts of &s;uch wretched worms as we, &s;hould be &s;o farre commen&s;urable with the Infinite Maje&s;ty, that as we have no immanent act but of Under&s;tanding or Will (or &s;ubordinate to the&s;e) &s;o God hath no other? or none but what are ex|pre&s;&s;ed in the&s;e two notions! Alas, that &s;illy worms &s;hould &s;o unreverently pre|&s;ume! and pretend to that knowledge of God which they have not! and might &s;o ea&s;ily know that they have not!</P>
<P>And for the former, How farre God hath an Under&s;tanding or Will, I will peru&s;e your words to Ma&s;ter <HI>Goodwin</HI> when I have done with this Se|ction.</P>
<P>This were enough to your Argument and Challenge: but I proceed to the confirmation of your implied <HI>minor.</HI> And 1. I ea&s;ily grant you, that it is certain there is no Addition to, or mutation of Gods E&s;&s;ence. 2. I think all the Acts a&s;|cribed to God are his E&s;&s;ence, and are one in them&s;elves con&s;idered. Pardon&punc; that I do but &s;ay [I think:] For though principles of rea&s;on and Metaphy&s;ical Axioms
<PB N="17" REF="19"> &s;eem to lead plainly to this Conclu&s;ion; yet I am afraid of pretending to any greater Certainty then I have; or of building too much on the doubtfull con|clu&s;ions of mans &s;lippery Rea&s;onings, about the nature of the Invi&s;ible Incom|prehen&s;ible God. I think it mo&s;t &s;utable to Gods Unity and Simplicity, that all his immanent acts (&s;o called by us) are Him&s;elf and are One. But I dare not &s;ay I am certain that God cannot be Simple and Perfect, except this be true: both becau&s;e He is beyond my knowledge, and becau&s;e the doctrine of the Tri|nity a&s;&s;ureth us that there is in God a true diver&s;ity&punc; con&s;i&s;ting with Unity, Sim|plicity and Perfection of E&s;&s;ence. 3. You know not what the &s;ubject of your Propo&s;ition is, (Gods acts of Under&s;tanding and Will:) and therefore you are uncapable of &s;uch peremptory concluding <HI>de Modis,</HI> knowingly and certainly, as here you pretend to. 4. You cannot prove that there's any &s;uch thing in God as an Immanent Act, or an Under&s;tanding or a Will in proper &s;en&s;e: but &s;ome|thing there is which we cannot fitlier or more profitably conceive or expre&s;s then under &s;uch notions, drawn Analogically from mans acts of Under&s;tanding and Willing. Now if we will &s;peak of Gods Incomprehen&s;ible nature by &s;uch Ana|logy, and put the names of Under&s;tanding and Willing on God, as borrowed from mans under&s;tanding and willing, then mu&s;t we accordingly conceive of Gods under&s;tanding and willing, as like to mans in the form of the&s;e acts (for we can reach to no higher conceptions, though the&s;e be utterly improper.) Now mans actual intellection doth connote and &s;uppo&s;e an intelligible object, and his Will doth connote and &s;uppo&s;e an appetible object: and con&s;equently it cannot be expected according to the utmo&s;t imaginable natural perfection of them, that either &s;hould go beyond the extent of their objects, or be &s;uch acts without their proper objects: <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Even as Gods Omnipotency is but</HI> dicta ad po&s;&s;ibi|lia, <HI>Vid.</HI> Aquin. 1. <HI>q. 25. a. 3. c.</HI></NOTE> The&s;e things thus pre|mi&s;ed, &s;ome will perhaps think you &s;ufficiently an&s;wered (when you &s;ay, it inferres that God was not Omni&s;cient, knew not all, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>) by telling you 1. That as Omni&s;ciency &s;igni|fies a Power of Knowing all things, Analogically a&s;cribed to God <HI>ad captum humanum</HI> as di&s;tinct from the act of knowing; &s;o God was yet Omni&s;cient. 2. As Omni&s;ciency &s;ignifieth the actual Know|ledge of all intelligible objects, &s;o God was Omni&s;cient And no more is requi|&s;ite to the perfection of his Knowledge. 3. But an Object may have not only its real but its <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>See</HI> Buridane <HI>of that question in his Ethicks &s;o far as to &s;hew the great difficulty.</HI></NOTE> intelligible Being <HI>de Novo</HI> which it had not before; and therefore as Omni&s;ciency &s;ig|nifieth the Knowledge of all things that <HI>will</HI> be intelligible, as well as tho&s;e that now <HI>are</HI> intelligible, &s;o (&s;ay they) it be|longs not to Gods perfection to be Omni&s;cient; for it is un|naturally and improperly called Science (and &s;o Omni&s;cience) which hath not an Object. Their foundation (which may &s;eem ab&s;urd to you) <HI>viz.</HI> That &s;ome things may <HI>de novo</HI> become the objects of Knowledge, they declare thus: 1. They &s;uppo&s;e, that though God be Indivi&s;ible, and &s;o his Eternity be Indivi&s;ible, and have neither in it, <HI>Praeteritum</HI> nor <HI>Futurum,</HI> nor <HI>Nunc</HI> neither, as we under&s;tand it, as expre&s;&s;ing a pre&s;ent in&s;tant of time; yet as God knoweth not Him&s;elf only, but the creature al&s;o, &s;o he knoweth not E<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nity only but Time: He knows how things are ordered and take place in mans Divi&s;ible mea|&s;ure of motions: and therefore he knows things as Pa&s;t, Pre&s;ent and Future, <HI>quoad hominem &amp; tempus,</HI> which are &s;o pa&s;t, pre&s;en<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> and future. And he doth not know a thing Pa&s;t to be Pre&s;ent (<HI>quoad tempus &amp; hominem</HI>) nor a thing Future to
<PB N="18" REF="20"> be Pa&s;t: but knows things truly as they be. 2. This being premi&s;ed, they will then a&s;&s;ume, that <HI>Peter</HI> and <HI>Paul</HI> did not actually exi&s;t from eternity: Chri&s;t did not actually &s;uffer from eternity: and &s;o the actual exi&s;tence of <HI>Peter</HI> in <HI>nunc temporis,</HI> was not an intelligible object from Eternity: and therefore they think they may conclude, that it could not be known from Eternity. They will urge their rea&s;on thus: 1. There was no Time from Eternity (that is, be|fore time:) therefore it could not be intelligible, that <HI>Peter</HI> did actually then exi&s;t in Time. 2. El&s;e you will confound Futurition and Pre&s;ent exi&s;tence: God did know from Eternity&punc; that <HI>Peter</HI> would exi&s;t in Time, <HI>i. e. futuritionem Petri:</HI> therefore it was not <HI>Peter</HI>'s pre&s;ent actual exi&s;tence that he knew. 3. The nature of <HI>foreknowledge</HI> is to know things as future, and therefore mu&s;t not be con|founded with knowledge of things as exi&s;tent. 4. This propo&s;ition before the creation was not true [<HI>Peter</HI> doth actually exi&s;t:] therefore God could not know it to be then true. But after <HI>Peter</HI>'s birth it did <HI>de novo</HI> become a true pro|po&s;ition: and therefore mu&s;t be <HI>de novo</HI> known to be then true. Before that, it was only true that [<HI>Haec Propo&s;itio vera futura e&s;t</HI>] but not [<HI>vera e&s;t:</HI>] therefore no more but the futurition of the Truth could be known, and not the actual pre|&s;ent exi&s;tence (as referring to time:) It is not all one to &s;ay [<HI>Petrus erit</HI>] and [<HI>Petrus e&s;t</HI>] nor all one to know it. 5. The contradictory Propo&s;ition was then true [<HI>Peter</HI> doth not exi&s;t:] But both contradictory Propo&s;itions could not be known to be true together, that is from Eternity. Therefore God did then know the Negative Propo&s;ition as then true [<HI>Petrus non exi&s;tit:</HI>] and the Affirmative <HI>de futuro</HI> to be true [<HI>Petrus futurus e&s;t, vel exi&s;tet:</HI>] but he did not know the Af|firmative <HI>de exi&s;tentia prae&s;enti</HI> to be true from Eternity [<HI>Petrus in nunc temporis existit</HI>] no nor [<HI>Petrus in nunc Aeternitatis exi&s;tit:</HI>] for they were then fal&s;e Pro|po&s;itions: nor yet was it then true that [<HI>Tempus actu exi&s;tit.</HI>] If you &s;ay, That there were no Propo&s;itions from Eternity, and therefore they could not be true or fal&s;e: this alters not the ca&s;e: for 1. We &s;peak on &s;uppo&s;ition that there had been creatures to have framed the&s;e Propo&s;itions. 2. If we conceive not of Gods Under&s;tanding as knowing the truth of Propo&s;itions, concerning things, we &s;hall &s;carce have any conception of it as an Under&s;tanding at all. 3. The Schools commonly &s;peak of the Eternal truth of Propo&s;itions, <HI>e. g. de futuris contingenti|bus.</HI> 4. There are Propo&s;itions in Time, and the&s;e God knows: and thats all one to the pre&s;ent ca&s;e. At <HI>Noahs</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">ood God knew not this Propo&s;ition to be then true [<HI>Petrus exi&s;tit:</HI>] for it was not then true. Nor did he know then that [it <HI>is</HI> true <HI>in nunc temporis quo exi&s;tit Petrus</HI>] but only, that i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> <HI>will</HI> be true: For <HI>Futura</HI> and not things pre&s;ently exi&s;tent are the objects o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Foreknowledge: and that [<HI>Nunc temporis</HI>] it &s;elf did not then exi&s;t. 6&punc; Otherwi&s;e it&punc; would be true that All things do coexi&s;t with God from Eternity: (which is di&s;claimed by tho&s;e that are now oppo&s;ed:) and &s;o that they do exi&s;t from Eternity. For if this Pro|po&s;ition were known to be true from Eternity [<HI>Petrus exi&s;tit, vel Deo coexist<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&punc;</HI>] then the thing expre&s;&s;ed is true, <HI>Peter</HI> did &s;o exi&s;t and coexi&s;t. For that which is fal&s;e cannot be known to be at the &s;ame time true. If it be granted therefore that <HI>Peter</HI> did not exi&s;t from Eternity, and con&s;equently that that Propo&s;ition was not then true, nor intelligible as then true, but only as of fut<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">e Verity, then when God in time knows it to be of pre&s;ent exi&s;tent Verity, he knows more then when he knows it to be only of future Verity and of pre&s;ent fal&s;hood: And &s;o about the crea<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ures, When he knows that they do exi&s;t and knows them as exi&s;ting, he knows more then when he knew them only to be future and as future. For if it be
<PB N="19" REF="20"> not more to know a thing as exi&s;tent then as future, and &s;o knowledge be not di|ver&s;ified from the object, then it is no more to know &s;omething then nothing: For the rea&s;on is the &s;ame: and future is a term of diminution as to exi&s;tent. And then it will be all one to know [<HI>Judas</HI> is damned] and [<HI>Peter</HI> is &s;aved:] [<HI>Jacob</HI> is loved] and [<HI>E&s;au</HI> is hated.] Yea then it would be all one i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> (<HI>per po&s;&s;ibile vel impo&s;&s;ibile</HI>) it were known [<HI>Peter</HI> is damned] and [<HI>Judas</HI> is &s;aved] or [<HI>Peter</HI> is &s;aved and damned:] and &s;o it would be all one to know fal&s;hood and truth.</P>
<P>Many &s;uch rea&s;onings as the&s;e will be u&s;ed again&s;t you. Of which if you would know my own opinion, I think they are <HI>de ignotis,</HI> dreams, fightings in the dark, yet much like your own. And though I know &s;everall things that you may &s;ay again&s;t this rea&s;oning, &s;o do I know much that may be &s;aid again&s;t yours: and, I think, both &s;ides would do better to profe&s;s that ignorance which they can nei|ther overcome nor <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ide. How con&s;tantly do the Schools di&s;tingui&s;h between Gods Ab&s;tractive and Intuitive Knowledge? <HI>Scientiam &s;implicis intelligentiae &amp; purae Vi&s;ionis?</HI> and tell us that the former in order of nature goes before the other? If this be &s;o, then God hath a <HI>Prius</HI> and <HI>Po&s;terius</HI> in the acts of his knowledge. The like we may &s;ay between Gods Knowledge of Him&s;elf and the creature. If they think it not ab&s;urd that <HI>etiam in mente Divina</HI> there &s;hould be a tran&s;ition of things <HI>&egrave; numero po&s;&s;ibilium in numerum futurorum,</HI> and this <HI>&s;ine mutatione;</HI> why may they not admit a knowledge of things as exi&s;tent only when they are exi&s;tent, and of things as future when they are future? and this <HI>&s;ine mutatione</HI> too? For the di&s;tinction <HI>quoad momenta temporis,</HI> will make but a gradual difference, in point of mutation, from that <HI>quoad ordinem naturae, vel momenta Rationis.</HI> All di&s;tincti|on, that hath real ground, denotes imperfection, according to our highe&s;t &s;pecu|lators, and &s;o mu&s;t all be denied of God. I refu&s;e not to &s;ay (if I mu&s;t &s;ay any thing) of both as Mr. <HI>Barlow</HI> doth <HI>Exercit.</HI> 5. (think him not pedantick, becau&s;e he is bound with <HI>Schibler:) Mutatio illa e&s;t &s;olum in objecto cognito, non in cogno|&s;cente, &s;eu cognitione; cum cognitio divina ab objecto non dependet, nec ad mutationem objecti mutationem ullam patitur,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Cum ideo admittit Alvarez res primo e&s;&s;e po&s;&s;i|biles &s;olum in ordine ad potentiam &amp; futuras in ordine ad voluntatem, nece&s;&s;e e&s;t ut prius cogno&s;cat cognitione ab&s;tractiva (quia ut po&s;&s;ibiles ea &s;olum cognitione cog<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">&s;ci po&s;sunt) &amp; po&s;tea cum per voluntatem fiunt futurae, &amp; etiam actu exi&s;tentes, illas cognitione in|tuitiv&acirc; cogno&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">et Deus. At hinc nulla in Deo mutatio &s;equetur, &s;ed &s;olum in objecto (ut fateatur nece&s;se e&s;t) Et per con&s;equens hoc dato, quod &s;cientia Dei ab ab&s;tracti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">a in in|tuitivam mutarctur, tamen non &s;equetur Deum e&s;&s;e mutabilem, vel cognitionem &s;uam ex parte rei: &s;ed &s;olum quod objecto variato, intellectus no&s;ter, varias ei denominationes attribuit: ut quod &s;it intuitiva, quod <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">b&s;tractiva, quae &s;olum &s;unt denominationes variae cognitioni divinae ab intellectu no&s;tro impo&s;itae, pro diver&s;o respectu ad creaturam, cum in &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;it omnino &s;implex &amp; invariata.</HI>]</P>
<P>But then I would fain know whether there be not the &s;ame nece&s;&s;ity that the difference between objects [only future] and [pre&s;ently exi&s;tent] &s;hould cau&s;e our under&s;tandings to put the forementioned various denominations on Gods Knowledge, as the difference <HI>inter Po&s;&s;ibilia &amp; Futura,</HI> doth &s;o cau&s;e us to put on it? And al&s;o whether in the &s;ame impropriety and imperfection, the very notions of [Under&s;tanding, Willing, Acting, Immanently, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>] be not <HI>Deno|minationes ab intellectu no&s;tro impo&s;itae,</HI> or a&s;&s;umed by God in conde&s;cen&s;ion to hu|mane weakne&s;s, expre&s;&s;ing but &s;ome little, very little, of that Divine&mdash;I know not what. For that &s;ame thing which man hath a true formall conception of un|der the notion of [Knowing, Willing] is varied according to the variety of
<PB N="20" REF="21"> objects: But if it be not &s;o with God (as I mu&s;t think and &s;ay, It is not, if I pre&s;ume to think and &s;ay any thing of it,) that is becau&s;e Knowledge and Willing in Him are not the things that we by tho&s;e terms u&s;e to expre&s;s; nor yet any thing that we can have formall proper conceptions of: And by the &s;ame nece&s;&s;ity and warrant as we do bring down the Divine nature &s;o low, as to apply to it the noti|ons of Acting, Under&s;tanding, Willing; may we al&s;o apply to it the notions of Acting, Knowing and Willing <HI>de novo;</HI> confe&s;&s;ing a further addition to the im|propriety of &s;peech. And therefore as God him&s;elf doth in Scripture accomo|date him&s;elf to our capacity, by a&s;&s;uming the terms and notions of Under|&s;tanding and Willing, &s;o doth he al&s;o of loving where he before hated, with divers the like, which in man would imply an innocent muta|tion.</P>
<P>I have here given you &s;ome rea&s;on of &s;everal pa&s;&s;ages of mine, which your fol|lowing Pages carp at, before you di&s;cerned my meaning, as I &s;hall &s;hew you fur|ther anon.</P>
<P>So much to your proof that there is no new immanent act in Gods Under|&s;tanding. One word to what follows about his Will.</P>
<P>Where you argue thus: [<HI>If of his Will, then this new act is either for the Better, or Wor&s;e, or Indifferent,</HI> &amp;c.] <HI>An&s;.</HI> In &s;trict propriety, it is taken as unproved, that he hath Will, or Immanent acts. But <HI>ad captum humanum</HI> as we are nece&s;&s;i|tated to a&s;cribe Willing and Acting to him, &s;o they that think they may on the &s;ame grounds a&s;cribe New acts of Will to him (as the Scripture undoubtedly doth,) will think that your Argument is &s;ufficiently an&s;wered thus:</P>
<P N="1">1. This arguing &s;uppo&s;eth mans &s;illy intellect capable of comprehending the Rea&s;ons of the Acts of the Almighty; as if it cannot be, except we can appre|hend the rea&s;on of it, and whether it be for the better or wor&s;e or indifferent; or what it produceth, or to what end it is: which is a mo&s;t bold arrogant pre&s;um|ption in &s;uch moles as we are. As I &s;aid before, you know not whether there may not be more Affections or <HI>Modi entium</HI> open to the Divine Intellect and Will, or Nature, then we have any name for or conception of: And though mans will look only at the goodne&s;s or appetibility or conveniency of objects, yet you know not what Gods will is; and therefore know not what is its adequate object. Many other rea&s;ons al&s;o of the ob&s;curity of this might be given.</P>
<P N="2">2. It will be an&s;wered you, that the &s;aid New act of Gods will, is for the Better: But then they will di&s;tingui&s;h of [<HI>Better.</HI>] 1. They will &s;ay, It is Better <HI>quoad rerum ordinem:</HI> and it is Better to the creature: (as for God to love him that before he hated: or approve of him, whom before he di&s;approved.) 2. They di&s;tingui&s;h al&s;o between that which may be &s;aid to be Better to God him&s;elf: Either Really, by a real addition to his perfection; and &s;o nothing can be Better to God: Or 2. Relatively and Reputatively; as God is &s;aid to be Ble&s;&s;ed, Glorified, Honoured, Well plea&s;ed, Exalted, Magnified, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> And thus it may be Better to God, though he receive no real addition of felicity; and &s;o not Vain or Indifferent.</P>
<P N="3">3. They will de&s;ire you to An&s;wer your own Argument as to tran&s;ient Acts, and they think it may &s;erve as to immanent acts. (Remembring that they &s;uppo&s;e that there be new acts in God without mutation; becau&s;e they &s;uppo&s;e that tho&s;e very things that we call immanent Acts in him are but denominations of his &s;im|ple E&s;&s;ence, according to the various a&s;pects or re&s;pects of the objects, which make no more mutation then relations do.) Was Gods act of Creation, of rai|&s;ing
<PB N="21" REF="21"> Chri&s;t from death, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> for the Better, or Wor&s;e, or Indifferent? I think you will &s;ay as before, that it was not Better as to God in the adding of any real felicity to him: But to God Reputarively and Relatively, and to the creature really, it was Better. So will they &s;ay about immanent acts, which may perfect the whole (as the Honour of the Prince is the good of the Commonwealth) and may be nece&s;&s;ary to the Good of particular per&s;ons; and the reputative Good of God him&s;elf. Its &s;aid, God made All things for him&s;elf, Was it for Better to him|&s;elf, or Wor&s;e, or Indifferent?</P>
<P N="4">4. Is it Better or Wor&s;e for a looking Gla&s;s that it receive a hundred various <HI>&s;pecies de novo?</HI> You will perhaps &s;ay, It is no di&s;paragement to the Gla&s;s to be receptive of new <HI>&s;pecies</HI> without being made Better or Wor&s;e: as al&s;o that its re|ception is pa&s;&s;ive, and &s;o is not Gods Under&s;tanding or Willing. I know not what it is: but I confe&s;s i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> mu&s;t needs be a very improper conception to conceive of God as pa&s;&s;ive in knowing. And yet man hath no true apprehen&s;ion of a knowledge which is wholly <HI>&s;ine pa&s;&s;ione:</HI> But how prove you that God cannot, if he plea&s;e, by his active Knowledge, Know <HI>de novo,</HI> without becoming Better or Wor&s;e? or doing it in vain? Are you &s;ure that every new act of intellection (even in a dream) doth make mans under&s;tanding better or wor&s;e? or el&s;e is vain? I confe&s;s more may be here &s;aid.</P>
<P N="5">5. Having done with your Argument, they will further tell you, that, If God may have new relations without any real change, then, for ought you know, he may have new immanent acts without a real change: But the Antecedent is unque&s;tionably true: (God was not a Creator before he had creatures: nor is he our Father before we are his children; nor our King, Ma&s;ter, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> before we are his &s;ubjects, &s;ervants, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> except <HI>de jure</HI> only:) The Con&s;equence they prove thus: Relations have as true an Entity, as, for ought you know, the&s;e which we call Immanent Acts in God, may have: Therefore the Novation of them will make as great a change. Here they &s;uppo&s;e that <HI>Actio</HI> and <HI>Relatio</HI> are both acci|dents (taken properly) and neither of them meer <HI>Entia Rationis</HI> (for in &s;o think|ing they go in the more beaten road) much le&s;s nothing: Or if you will &s;ay, that <HI>Relatio</HI> is but <HI>Modus entis,</HI> they will &s;ay &s;o of action too: Or however they tell you, that it may be &s;o for ought you know, with that which we call an Act in God. And here they &s;uppo&s;e that his Acts are not his E&s;&s;ence ab&s;olutely and in it &s;elf con&s;idered; and that it &s;ignifies not all one to &s;ay, God is God, and to &s;ay, God willeth the exi&s;tence of this worm: And therefore they will &s;ay, that the&s;e which we call Acts, may be, if not Relations, yet &s;ome of <HI>Scotus</HI> his for|malities, or &s;omething to us unknown, which have either no more Being then Relations, or at lea&s;t not &s;o much as to make a real change in God. And that there is in his &s;imple, indivi&s;ible E&s;&s;ence, a Trinity of per&s;ons, without any im|perfection: &s;o there may be in his E&s;&s;ence, di&s;tinct formalities (or &s;omewhat that we cannot name or conceive of) of a lower nature, then Per&s;onality, with|out any inconvenience: and as th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;e may be &s;uperadded to the meer ab&s;olute E&s;&s;ence of God (as <HI>Agere, Intelligere, Velle,</HI> are added) without dividing, or multiplying it: &s;o may <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">bey on <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">e <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ame grounds be New, or renewed, without any Mutation of Gods E&s;&s;ence; but only of the formality of intellection or Vo|lition, which is added to his E&s;&s;ence.</P>
<P N="6">6. They further think that the nature of tran&s;ient acts, doth prove that imma|nent acts may be renewed: Bu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">his will be more &s;poke to anon, when we come to your doctrine of tran&s;ient Acts. They &s;ay, A tran&s;ient act is not a meer Re|lation
<PB N="22" REF="22"> or Pa&s;&s;ion or Effect: But there is in it that which may be called action <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> agente,</HI> as well as pa&s;&s;ion <HI>&agrave; patiente.</HI> Now if <HI>actio</HI> be <HI>efficientis actio</HI> here, and God in creating the world did <HI>ver&egrave; agere,</HI> then either the world was created from eter|nity, or el&s;e God did create it from Eternity, and yet it was created only in Time, and the Cau&s;ation or Cau&s;ing creating Act was infinitely before the Effect; or el&s;e there was a new act really performed by God in Time. The fir&s;t none will maintain, that I deal with. The &s;econd, &s;ay they, is again&s;t common rea&s;on: For Gods act is the <HI>Cau&s;a proxima creaturae;</HI> and <HI>omnis cau&s;a proxima reciprocatur cum &s;uo effectu:</HI> i. e. <HI>Po&s;ita cau&s;a proxima in actu, nece&s;se e&s;t effectum poni:</HI> If it be <HI>cau&s;a totalis,</HI> yea and requireth nothing el&s;e to the effect &s;o much as by preparation, or di&s;po&s;ition, no nor a &s;ubject matter, then the act of creation mu&s;t needs im|mediatly produce the creature; and the <HI>Creare</HI> and <HI>Creari</HI> mu&s;t needs be in&s;epara|ble: Its an&s;wered that Gods creating act was from eternity, but the effect, or creature, was not till its Time. But it will be replied, That either God did more for the creatures production or creation at the time of its pa&s;&s;ive creation, then he did from Eternity, or he did no more: If more, then he did &s;omething <HI>de novo:</HI> If no more, then either the creature would have had its Being from Eterni|ty, <HI>quia po&s;ita caus&acirc; ponitur effectus;</HI> or el&s;e if you ask whats the rea&s;on that the creature was not in Being &s;ooner or later, no cau&s;e can be a&s;&s;igned&punc; and &s;o God &s;hould not be the cau&s;e. This holds equally (&s;ay they) whether you make the creating act to be only Gods <HI>Velle,</HI> or <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;uperadded execution of that will, as being the effect of power. For either God willed the creatures pre&s;ent exi&s;tence from eternity, as much as at the time of its creation, or as at this day&punc; or he did not. If he did not, then he willeth <HI>de novo:</HI> If he did, then the creature would have exi&s;ted, as &s;oon as it was willed. To &s;ay, that God willed from Eternity that the creature &s;hould be in Time, is true: But is it as much to Will that it <HI>&s;hall be,</HI> as to Will its pre&s;ent exi&s;tence? If it be an&s;wered, That there is no <HI>Pa&s;t</HI> or <HI>Future</HI> with God; I an&s;wer 1. That this was prevented before; when it was &s;aid, that God under&s;tandeth Time, and propo&s;itions concerning time, though time be only mans mea&s;ure, and propo&s;itions mans in&s;truments. 2. The men that I &s;peak to, maintain that all things coexi&s;t not with God from Eternity (though indeed the term [<HI>from</HI>] as here u&s;ed, contradicteth Eternity:) and they di&s;tin|gui&s;h between Gods willing <HI>rerum futuritionem &amp; exi&s;tentiam prae&s;entem:</HI> and there|fore this &s;eemeth to make again&s;t their an&s;wer. (But indeed none of all this ar|guing is &s;olid, becau&s;e of the different manner of producing effects <HI>per voluntatem, &amp; per potentiam excquentem voluntati &s;uperadditam.</HI>) Perhaps it will be &s;aid, that if all this be granted, yet it followeth not that immanent acts may be <HI>de novo</HI> without a change in God, becau&s;e the Creating act, or any tran&s;ient act is &s;o: For the former is God him&s;elf, but the later is not. To which it may be replied, 1. We &s;peak not now of a product or effect, called the Creation, but of the crea|ting act and then why &s;hould not that be God him&s;elf, as well as an immanent act? If you &s;ay it i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> a Being, then it is God or di&s;tinct from God: If di&s;tinct from God, it is a &s;ub&s;tance or accident, or &s;ome <HI>modus,</HI> or who knows what? Accidents God hath none: Sub&s;tance it cannot be; except it be God. If you &s;ay it is any <HI>modus,</HI> you know what School contradiction you mu&s;t expect: Or if you &s;ay it is a Reality or a Formality, tho&s;e that you deal with will tell you, that they can as well prove the immanent acts to be formalities, or &s;uch like, as you can the tran&s;ient. For 2. they &s;ay (with others) that the&s;e acts are not cal|led Immanent, Po&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">ively, as if they had any effect or <HI>terminus</HI> in God him&s;elf;
<PB N="23" REF="22"> but Negatively, becau&s;e they have no effect, <HI>ad extra;</HI> and do <HI>nihil ponere in objecto.</HI> So that as to the nature of the act it &s;elf, they &s;ay, it is the &s;ame, or at lea&s;t, the later as much e&s;&s;ential to God, as the former (though not their effects.) And I have paper conver&s;e with a Divine, if I mi&s;take not, full as Learned as M^r <HI>K.</HI> (to &s;peak &s;paringly) who maintains, that tho&s;e which you call immanent acts (<HI>viz.</HI> Gods Knowing and Willing other things be&s;ides him&s;elf) are tran&s;ient, and &s;o to be called; as having as much an extrin&s;ick object, as tho&s;e that you and I call Tran&s;ient; though they make no real change on them: and that tho&s;e only are to be called Gods immanent acts, who&s;e object is him&s;elf. 3. Moreover you will acknowledge that Gods <HI>Velle</HI> i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> an immanent act&punc; But how many and how great are they that maintain that Gods Creating act, was but his <HI>Velle</HI> that things &s;hould be! I need not tell you of Schoolmen that are for this: but when you (doubtle&s;s) know that D^<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> <HI>Twi&s;&s;e</HI> him&s;elf affirms it, in his <HI>Vindic.</HI> you mu&s;t either be of his minde, or <HI>handle him unworthily</HI> by your Di&s;&s;ent, as <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> did in ano|ther ca&s;e. Now if the act by which God produced the creatures be but his <HI>Velle,</HI> then it is an act which you call immanent. And you well know how commonly it is maintained that <HI>Deus operatur per e&s;&s;entiam:</HI> and that there is no act but his e&s;&s;ence it &s;elf, requi&s;ite to any effect, which he produceth, as it is the effect of the fir&s;t Cau&s;e. But this is but <HI>ad hominem;</HI> for the&s;e are not their principles who&s;e arguings I now recite. They &s;uppo&s;e that creation and other tran&s;ient acts, are not meer Volitions, but acts of power, in execution of Gods will. To which purpo&s;e <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ow largely many famous Schoolmen have argued, is obvious to them that are conver&s;ant in them. <HI>Aurcolus</HI> hath fifteen Arguments to this end. <HI>Gregor. Arminien&s;is</HI> hath many Arguments to prove that how ever Creation or Con&s;erva|tion be taken, neither of them is God him&s;elf. <HI>Capreolus</HI> I know and other Tho|mi&s;ts an&s;wer the&s;e Arguments: and much may be replied and is, to tho&s;e an|&s;wers: &s;o that in &s;o dark and un&s;earchable a Controver&s;ie, &s;trong wits may finde &s;omething to &s;ay, again&s;t each other, longer then the patience of the wi&s;e&s;t of their Readers will hold out to know the i&s;&s;ue of their di&s;putes. <HI>Aegidius, Thom. de Argent. Occam,</HI> and others plead al&s;o for a nece&s;&s;ity of an executive act of power, di&s;tinct from the meer act of willing, or that Creation is not God. So do <HI>Jacob. Martini, Suarez, Schibler,</HI> and other later Authors. And if (as <HI>Aquinas</HI> &s;aith) tran&s;ient acts be <HI>formaliter in agente,</HI> as well as immanent, then the inception of new immanent acts &s;eems to have no other inconveniences, then the inception of tran&s;ient acts as to the form. But indeed the Thomi&s;ts &s;ay the &s;ame of both, that they are only Gods e&s;&s;ence, and that God hath no tran&s;ient act at all, but only that his E&s;&s;ence or Will or Under&s;tanding may be &s;o denominated for the rational Relation of the Object thereto. And therefore <HI>Aquinas (1. q. 25. a.</HI> 1.) maintaining that there is in God <HI>Potentia activa</HI> (though not <HI>pa&s;&s;iva</HI>) withall maintains it to be the &s;amething, as the action, and as his Will and Under&s;tand|ing. (And yet &s;ometime be calleth Gods actions tran&s;ient! but in this he &s;peaks uncon&s;tantly or doubtfully, as <HI>Suarez</HI> noteth <HI>Met. disp.</HI> 20. &sect;. 5.) And the &s;ub|&s;tance of all <HI>Capreolus</HI> an&s;wer to <HI>Aureolus</HI> fifteen Arguments is this &s;ame di&s;tincti|on, between Gods act of Creation it &s;elf (which is his Will and E&s;&s;ence, im|manent and eternal) and the <HI>Relatio rationis</HI> between God and the object; from which Gods will is denominated a tran&s;ient act. But yet in this tran&s;ient act, it is only the relation, and not the act it &s;elf (which is God him&s;elf) which may be diver&s;ified or renewed. Now if this meer <HI>relatio rationis</HI> be &s;ufficient ground for our denomination of Gods act to be [Tran&s;ient] and the&s;e tran&s;ient acts to
<PB N="24" REF="23"> be new, then it may &s;eem that the relation of the &s;ame act to &s;ome extrin&s;ick terminative objects (as of Gods knowledge to the pre&s;ent exi&s;tence of things <HI>in n<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nc temporis</HI>) doth give the &s;ame ground to call tho&s;e acts new, though not &s;o properly tran&s;ient. For if one may be denominated from its re&s;pect to its object, why not the other: Nay why the &s;ame <HI>relatio rationis</HI> may not as well denominate tho&s;e acts tran&s;ient al&s;o, which we now call immanent, is not ea&s;ie to di&s;cern: For both have re&s;pect to an extrin&s;ick object, if that &s;uffice. Nay doth not that act which is called immanent, produce or effect? &s;eeing it is only <HI>Volendo</HI> without any other executive action that God effecteth all things that are effected: and this <HI>Vel<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e</HI> from eternity is (&s;ay they) <HI>cau&s;a in actu</HI> of tho&s;e things that are produced in time. And therefore many &s;ay, that God hath no Will as to extrin&s;icks, but what is effective: and &s;o that his Will hath no extrin&s;ick object properly &s;o called, but only products or effects. That <HI>omne velle Dei e&s;t operativum &amp; efficax eorum quae vult,</HI> and that therefore he may not be &s;aid to will any thing but what he doth ef|fect. See <HI>Gibi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">uf de Libert.</HI> li. 2. c. 24. <HI>&amp;</HI> 1.</P>
<P>So that in Conclu&s;ion, according to the Doctrine of the mo&s;t Learned Tho|mi&s;ts, there is in God neither immanent nor tran&s;ient act in M^r <HI>K</HI>'s &s;en&s;e. (Ex|cept tho&s;e that are terminated, as they call it, in him&s;elf as the object.) Not im|manent; for they are not terminated in the Agent, as M^r <HI>K.</HI> &s;aith, &s;uch are; nay they have re&s;pect to things extrin&s;ick; nay, &s;ay many, they are productive of the&s;e extrin&s;ick things. Not tran&s;ient; for Gods e&s;&s;ence doth not <HI>tran&s;ire in ob|jectum extraneum,</HI> but only cau&s;e it without any other executive action; and &s;o re&s;pecteth it. In the &s;ame &s;en&s;e therefore, and on the &s;ame grounds as you will maintain the tran&s;ient act to be in time, and not eternal, will the&s;e men think to prove it al&s;o of the immanent. For even the tran&s;ient acts of God (&s;o called) are not in the creature, but only re&s;pect and effect them. As <HI>Capreolus</HI> &s;aith (<HI>li. 2. dist. 1. q. 2. art. 3.) Talis actio praedicamentalis &amp; quae e&s;t motus, e&s;t &s;ubjectiv&egrave; in pa&s;so: Divina autem actio non e&s;t motus, nec mutatio, licet cau&s;et motum &amp; muta|tionem.</HI></P>
<P N="7">7. But they much in&s;i&s;t on that before intimated, that if it be no wrong to Gods &s;implicity to have diver&s;ity or multiplicity of immanent acts a&s;cribed to him, then it is not any wrong to his immutability to have &s;uch acts a&s;cribed to him <HI>de novo:</HI> For the rea&s;on will prove alike. But that it is no wrong to God to have diver&s;ity of immanent acts a&s;cribed to him, is evident by 1. The u&s;e of Scripture. 2. The u&s;e of all Divines. 3. And the nece&s;&s;ity of the thing. 1. I need not tell any man that hath read the Bible, that Scripture di&s;tingui&s;heth of Gods at|tribut<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> that it a&s;cribeth to him Under&s;tanding, Will, Memory, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> that it &s;peaketh not of his Love and Hatred, his Approbation and Di&s;allowance, his Ju&s;tice and Mercy, as being one, not to be di&s;tingui&s;hed. 2. And what Divines &s;p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 span">wi&s;e? even of them that make the bolde&s;t enquiries into Gods nature, and pa&s;s of it the mo&s;t con&s;ident conclu&s;ions, as if they had &s;een the invi&s;ible Maje&s;ty: I mean the Schoolmen of all &s;orts: To how little purpo&s;e were many a Volume in <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">^m <HI>Sent.</HI> for the mo&s;t part, if it were enough to apprehend in God undivi&s;ible Unity? How ea&s;ily on the&s;e grounds might we an&s;wer all <HI>Bradwar|dines,</HI> all <HI>Twi&s;&s;es</HI> &s;ublime di&s;putes, about Gods willing &s;in, his order of intention, and of his Decrees, his Election and Reprobation, whether ab&s;olute or condi|tional, definite or indefinite, and <HI>de rerum po&s;&s;ibilitate &amp; futuritione ab aeterno,</HI> with many the like? Its ea&s;ie to &s;ay, that all the&s;e are one and the &s;ame thing: and the &s;ame is not before or after it &s;elf, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Yet this is not taken for a &s;atisfactory
<PB N="25" REF="23"> way of di&s;puting. 3. Yea is it not apparent, that there is a nece&s;&s;ity of &s;uch di|&s;tingui&s;hing language? How many &s;ouls would you be likely to convert, and &s;ave? how many &s;ins to prevent, by telling your Auditory, that in deed and truth it is all one thing in God to Decree a man to &s;alvation, or to decree him to damnation? Its all one to Will that you &s;hall &s;in, and that you &s;hall not &s;in: that you &s;hall die this day, and that your Neighbour &s;hall live fourty years longer: Its the &s;ame thing, without any true difference, for God to Love you now you believe, and to Hate you while you were a worker of Iniquity; to be plea&s;ed and di&s;plea&s;ed, to Approve and di&s;like; His Love to <HI>Peter,</HI> to <HI>Jacob,</HI> and his Hatred to <HI>Judas,</HI> to <HI>E&s;au</HI> was the &s;ame thing, only the effects are not the &s;ame. I &s;ay, how &s;avoury and profitable would this doctrine be?</P>
<P>And are there not the &s;ame Rea&s;ons for our a&s;cribing to God, the beginning and ending of Immanent Acts, as the Diver&s;ity of them? Is not one as con&s;i&s;tent with his Immutability, as the other with his &s;implicity? Doth not Scripture a|&s;cribe to God the Inception and ending of Immanent Acts, as well as the Diver|&s;ity of them? And is ther enot as great a nece&s;&s;ity of our u&s;ing that language as the other? How many &s;ouls were you like to &s;ave by telling them [God Loved you as well before you believed, yea before Chri&s;t died for you, as he doth &s;ince! God doth Hate you now as much as he did when you were a worker of iniquity, and is as much offended with you &s;ince you believed as he was when you were a childe of wrath! He had the &s;ame thoughts of you when you were bla&s;pheming, murdering and committing adultery, as when you repent and pray. God is now decreeing to create the world; he is now decreeing to give the Law by <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> to &s;ave <HI>Noah</HI> by the Ark, <HI>Lot</HI> out of <HI>Sodom:</HI> he is now Decreeing that Chri&s;t &s;hall &s;uffer for us; he now knows all the&s;e as future: he is no more Reconciled to the world by Chri&s;t, or Plea&s;ed in or by his Sufferings and Merits then he was before: God knows now that [Chri&s;t is now on the Cro&s;s] or [Chri&s;t is not Ri&s;en] is a true Propo&s;ition, becau&s;e he did once know that it is a true Propo&s;ition: and he cea&s;eth not to know it:] would this kinde of doctrine &s;eem &s;ound and edifying? Do you u&s;e to preach thus?</P>
<P>But you'le &s;ay, That Gods Knowledge, Will, Power, Goodne&s;s, Ju&s;tice, In|finitene&s;s, his Willing the End and the Means, the futurition of things, and their pre&s;ent exi&s;tence, mens &s;alvation or damnation are all diver&s;ified onely as to <HI>ex|trin&s;ick denomination,</HI> and not really: from the variety of objects it is, that one act of God is variou&s;ly denominated.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. But <HI>Scotus</HI> with his followers, <HI>Sirectus, Ba&s;olis, Trombeta le Roy, Go|thutius, Mayro, Faventinus,</HI> and the like, tell us of more then extrin&s;ick denomina|tions: And if there be in God a Diver&s;ity of Formalities; it may as well be &s;aid, that there is an inception and ending of the&s;e Formalities in him. This doth no more derogate from the Immutability of God, then the other from his &s;im|plicity.</P>
<P N="2">2. Have the&s;e extrin&s;ick Denominations any true Ground in the things deno|minated, or not? If not, it &s;eems they are all fal&s;e, and therefore not to be u&s;ed. If they have, then what is it? The difference of names &s;hould &s;uppo&s;e an equal difference in the Things. A meer Relative difference, &s;ome are loth to grant. If they &s;hould, as they plead for a diver&s;ity of Relations, others may as well plead for an Inception and Ce&s;&s;ation of Relations: (Could they prove Immanent acts to be but Relations.) If they &s;ay they are <HI>Modi</HI> or <HI>Entia rationis,</HI> or what ever title ra&s;h adventurous wits may impo&s;e on them, &s;till others will &s;ay as much for their
<PB N="26" REF="24"> Beginning and Ending, as they do for their Diver&s;ity, and that one impli<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s no more a Change in God, then the other denieth his &s;implicity. The de&s;cribers of Extrin&s;ick Denomination that place it between <HI>Ens</HI> and <HI>Nihil,</HI> make it to &s;ig|nifie the order of a thing to the &s;ubject which yet it is not in. But then it is a meer Relation which is Denominated; or if any more, it &s;hould be <HI>ex parte objecti</HI> only in our ca&s;e.</P>
<P N="3">3. But &s;uppo&s;e that it be but a meer extrin&s;ick Denomination, and have no Reall Ground in the thing denominated; &s;ee what follows: But this much: That Gods Knowledge, and Will, and Power, and Ju&s;tice, and Mercy, his Knowing me to be Godly or ungodly, his decre<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ing <HI>Peter</HI> to life, and <HI>Judas</HI> to death; his loving <HI>Jacob</HI> and hating <HI>E&s;au,</HI> are all one; his knowing one thing to be future, and another not future, is all one: But yet becau&s;e of the Diver&s;ity of objects it is meet and needfull, that we Denominate extrin&s;ecally Gods acts to be divers: and &s;o to di&s;tingui&s;h his Intention of the End, from his Election of the Means; his Election from his Reprobation, his Approbation from his di&s;like, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Even &s;o, the&s;e acts in God have in them&s;elves no Beginning or End: God did never Begin to Love, to Will this or that, to Know <HI>&amp;c.</HI> But yet becau&s;e of the Begin|ning and Ending of objects, it is meet and needfull to Denominate Gods acts extrin&s;ecally as Beginning and Ending, as the objects do, and changing with them. For here the ca&s;e is the &s;ame as to Gods Immutability, as in the other to his &s;implicity. And if this hold, then tho&s;e men that &s;hould write Voluminous Di&s;putes, about the Beginning and Ending of Immanent acts, would do as war|rantably as D^r <HI>Twi&s;s</HI> and others do in writing &s;o of their diver&s;ity, priority and po&s;teriority in nature. Nay is it not much more Ju&s;tifiable then many of their Volumes? For from Eternity there was no reall diver&s;ity of objects to denomi|nate Gods Immanent acts from. For that <HI>e&s;&s;e cognitum vel volitum,</HI> which they'le flie to, could be no where, but <HI>in mente &amp; voluntate Divina:</HI> and if there were no Diver&s;ity <HI>in mente Divina</HI> at all, then what ground can be imagined of the extrin|&s;ick Denominations? For example, <HI>Po&s;&s;ibilia &amp; futura</HI> being nothing, could not in them&s;elves differ from eternity: Yet how great a fabrick doth D^r <HI>Twi&s;s</HI> build upon this Propo&s;ition, that [the tran&s;ition of things future <HI>&egrave; numero po&s;&s;ibil<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">um in numerum futurorum,</HI> being from Eternity, it mu&s;t needs have an eternal Cau&s;e which can be no other then Gods Will.] Now if there were no &s;uch tran&s;ition, but <HI>in mente divin&acirc;,</HI> and if there were no &s;uch notion from Eternity any where el&s;e, as is [Future and Po&s;&s;ible] and &s;o it mu&s;t be imagined to be an <HI>Ens raetionis Divinae,</HI> then it plainly follows that there was no &s;uch thing as Future, di&s;tinct from Po&s;&s;ible: for in God is no di&s;tinct Immanent acts, (as knowing Po&s;&s;ibles, and Knowing things future;) and in the things was no di&s;tinction, for they are nothing.</P>
<P>It &s;eems therefore that upon your own Grounds it is as Ju&s;tifiable and nece&s;&s;ary, to Denominate extrin&s;ecally Gods Immanent acts, as having Beginning and End, when the objects have &s;o, as it is to Denominate them divers from the diver&s;ity of the object: and that if we made this our ordinary &s;peech in voluminous Di&s;putes, you could no more blame us for it, then all the exacte&s;t School-Divines are to be blamed for the other.</P>
<P>Moreover, &s;ome may think, that you do teach Infidels to de&s;troy the Chri&s;tian Faith, or teach a man to prove or di&s;prove what he will, becau&s;e Contradictories may con&s;i&s;t, <HI>e. g.</HI> If they would prove that [Chri&s;t is not Ri&s;en] thus: That which God knoweth to be true, is true: But God Knoweth this Propo&s;ition to be <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rue [Chri&s;t is not Ri&s;en] Therefore. The <HI>minor</HI> they prove thus: God did
<PB N="27" REF="24"> once know this Propo&s;ition to be true: Therefore he doth &s;o &s;till: for there is no Ending of any Immanent act of God. It will be an&s;wered, That this onely &s;hews a difference in the object, that it was once true, which now is not: but Gods act is the &s;ame by which he knoweth the&s;e mutable objects. Be it &s;o: (yet whether it be certain and can be proved &s;till, is by them doubted:) but is it fit for us to &s;peak of this act as one only? It &s;eems then, it is all one, in God to know a Propo&s;ition to be True, and to know it to be fal&s;e. For the fore-&s;aid Pro|po&s;ition [Chri&s;t is not Ri&s;en] was True one day, and Fal&s;e the next; and God knew both. You'le &s;ay, It is all one in God to Know that to be True which is True, and that to be Fal&s;e which is Fal&s;e: but in both he knows <HI>Ver&egrave;, et&s;i non verum.</HI> But then you mu&s;t tell us further, what it is for God to Know [<HI>Truly:</HI>] Is it the Congruency of his Knowledge to the Object, which we call the Truth of it? I think you will &s;ay &s;o: And if &s;o, then it is not obvious to &s;hew how there was &s;uch a Congruence from Eternity, when there was Nothing but God; and &s;o no other object for his knowledge to agree to: For in God they were all but one, either in <HI>e&s;&s;e cognito,</HI> or <HI>e&s;&s;e volito;</HI> for in him is no reall diver&s;ity: and out of him, or in them&s;elves they were not at all: and therefore if God knew all things as many or divers, when they were not at all, and as exi&s;tent, when they did not exi&s;t, where is the Congruence of the act with the object? But all this ar|guing is but light.</P>
<P>But they further argue thus: Gods Immanent acts, which we are &s;peaking of, are not Him&s;elf: and therefore as they may be either diver&s;ified or multiplied with|out his Divi&s;ion or Compo&s;ition, &s;o they may begin or end without his Mutation. The antecedent they prove by that common Argument: The&s;e Immanent acts about the Creature, are Free; God Freely Willeth the exi&s;tence of this worm or pile of gra&s;s: he &s;o Willed it that he could have not willed it, or nilled it. But his own Being is nece&s;&s;ary, and cannot but be: Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> It &s;eems hard to &s;ay, that God did as nece&s;&s;arily Will the pardoning of your &s;ins, as he is ne|ce&s;&s;arily God: Or that he could no more have Willed one pile of gra&s;s more or le&s;&s;e on the earth, or one &s;and more or le&s;&s;e on the Sea-&s;hore, or one day more or le&s;&s;e to any mans life, then he could cea&s;e to be God. This is a &s;hort way of an|&s;wering <HI>Beverovicius</HI> que&s;tion, and of an&s;wering the pre&s;umptuous enquiry, Whe|ther God could have made any thing better, and a thou&s;and more? <HI>Itane etiam ip&s;um Numen fato con&s;tringitur?</HI> Is it a good Argument? <HI>Deus e&s;t: ergo n<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ce&s;&s;e e&s;t Creaturas e&s;se, nec plures, nec pauciores, nec pri&ugrave;s, nec po&s;teri&ugrave;s,</HI> &amp;c? One of my Rabbi's (by who&s;e name I have acquainted Mr. <HI>K.</HI> with my ignorance) an&s;wereth that Gods Decrees are Free, <HI>Solum per terminationem ad extraneum, &s;eu in quantum Volitio Dei, circa objectum aliquod extrin&s;ecum practic&egrave; e&s;t.</HI> But this is as much as to &s;ay, No Immanent act is Free: For Immanent acts (at lea&s;t if Mr. <HI>K.</HI> know) are not terminated in any thing wihtout: Or if a man &s;hould &s;ay, that tho&s;e that have an extrin&s;ick object, are objectively terminated in &s;omething extrin&s;ick; yet this &s;eems none of the Authours &s;en&s;e (as the word <HI>practic&egrave;</HI> &s;hews:) and if it were (as perhaps it is) his words would run thus: [Gods Decrees are free, onely as they are &s;uch and &s;uch Decrees about &s;uch objects:] which would but yield the cau&s;e, that as &s;uch Decrees they are not the &s;ame formally with the divine E&s;&s;ence. And were it not for the Connotation of the Object, it were no Decree, nor to be called, but &s;imply Gods E&s;&s;ence. I am &s;ure Dr. <HI>Twi&s;&s;e</HI> will be fully and earne&s;t|ly enough for tho&s;e that maintain the liberty of the Divine Decrees which we now mention: and therefore I &s;uppo&s;e Mr. <HI>K.</HI> will be of the &s;ame minde.</P>
<PB N="28" REF="25">
<P>And that there is not &s;uch clear Evidence in this ca&s;e, as to embolden men to &s;uch confident Conclu&s;ions, or to build &s;o much on them, as &s;ome do, let <HI>Suarez</HI> perplexed Di&s;pute <HI>Metaph. Di&s;p. 30. Sect.</HI> 9. te&s;tifie, <HI>Quomodo cum divina libertate &s;tet Immutabilitas?</HI> Where after the producing of many opinions, and the Argu|ments and An&s;wers, he concludes, <HI>Ex his quae circa has opiniones dicta &s;unt, &s;atis (ut opinor) declaratum e&s;t quanta &s;it hujus opinionis difficultas; faciliu&s;que e&s;&s;e quamlibet ejus partem impugnare, quam aliquam probe defendere, aut explicare. Quapropter non vereor Confiteri nihil me invenire quod mihi &s;atisfaciat, ni&s;i hoc &s;olum, in huju&s;modi rebus id de Deo e&s;&s;e credendum, quod ineffabili ejus perfectioni magis &s;it con&s;entaneum, quodque ab omni imperfectione alienum &s;it,</HI> &amp;c.] And how uncertain are men, that &s;ome of tho&s;e things may not con&s;i&s;t with the Divine Perfection, which yet they confidently affirm to be incon&s;i&s;tent with it? If it be a point that is &s;o farre pa&s;t the reach of <HI>Suarez</HI> and many other &s;uch &s;ubtil Di&s;puters, I think Mr. <HI>K.</HI> &s;hould not pretend to &s;o full an in&s;ight into it, which may rai&s;e him to that confidence which is here expre&s;&s;ed; much le&s;&s;e &s;hould he think it &s;o obvious to the under&s;tandings of his inferiours.</P>
<P>How light &s;o ever Dr. <HI>Twi&s;s</HI> make of them, certainly they are accounted no chil|dren among the mo&s;t learned of their &s;ide, who do <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">each, That there may be &s;o far a Beginning and Cea&s;ing of Gods Immanent acts, which have a mutable object, without any change in God him&s;elf, as that they may have a new tran&s;ition to the object, and &s;o God may Will that which before he Willed not, though yet it be all by one &s;imple act. Of this minde is <HI>Penottus, Lychetus, Fr. a Sancta Clara:</HI> And the &s;aid <HI>Sancta Clara&punc;</HI> citeth others as countenancing his Doctrine. But though there are but few for this opinion, yet for the formal di&s;tinction of Gods Immanent acts (which as is &s;aid, &s;eems to be as incon&s;i&s;tent with his &s;implicity, as this with his Immutability) there are many and that of the mo&s;t Learned: <HI>Vid. quae habet Scotus in &s;ent. l. 1. di&s;t. 8. Qu. 3. &amp; di&s;t. 2. Qu. 4. &amp; 7. &amp; di&s;t. 34. &amp; pa&s;&s;im.</HI> And <HI>Rada</HI> &s;aith, that <HI>Scoti &s;ententiam ab ejus diebus univer&s;a Parien&s;is Schola &s;emper amplexata fuerit, necnon &amp; Lovanien&s;is atque Bononien&s;is Academia; Et in uni|ver&s;a Italia apud omnes vivos doctos e&s;t celebris &amp; famo&s;a. In Contr</HI> 4. And their Rea&s;ons are not contemptible, which may be &s;een in their &s;everal Writers: Spe|cially in tho&s;e that have wrote whole books of the Formalities. Or <HI>Rada</HI> (a man of a clear under&s;tanding and expre&s;&s;ion) will afford you many in that one <HI>Contr.</HI> 4. which are worthy con&s;ideration. And if <HI>Ph. Faber Faventinus</HI> his reconciling Interpretation of their Di&s;tinction <HI>Rationis Ratiocinatae,</HI> will prove their &s;en&s;e, then many of the <HI>Thomi&s;ts</HI> are al&s;o of the &s;ame minde. <HI>Vid.</HI> Faventin. <HI>Tract. de for|malitat. cap.</HI> 3.</P>
<P>I do not mean by this Argument to conclude that there <HI>mu&s;t</HI> be (or in all ca&s;es <HI>may</HI> be) an Inception or Ce&s;&s;ation of tho&s;e Acts which admit of a formal Di&s;tin|ction: But only thus, that if a formal Di&s;tinction be con&s;i&s;tent with the Divine &s;implicity, then an Inception and Ce&s;&s;ation of &s;ome &s;uch formalities (or acts, <HI>quoad formales differentias</HI>) may &s;eem con&s;i&s;tent with Gods Immutability: (And I know no other Argument of moment then left, if that be &s;olved.) What the&s;e formalities are, I do not wonder, if they give but a dark account: Yet that they are different objective conceptions they agree. And as <HI>Rada</HI> &s;aith, <HI>ad Di&s;tinctio|nem formalem duo requiruntur. Alterum e&s;t, quod utrumque di&s;tinctionis extremum di|cat aliquid Po&s;itivum in re, &s;eclu&s;a operatione Intellectus: Alterum e&s;t, quod utrumque extremum dicat propriam formalitatem, &s;ecundum quam &s;it in rerum natura extra &s;uam <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">au&s;am.</HI> And <HI>Scotus</HI> him&s;elf &s;aith of this as applied to God; <HI>Quod Forma in crea|turis
<PB N="29" REF="25"> habet aliquid imperfectionis, &s;cilicet quod e&s;t Forma informans aliquid, &amp; Pars compo&s;iti: aliquid etiam habet quod non e&s;t imperfectionis, &s;ed con&s;equitur <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">am &s;ecundum &s;uam rationem e&s;&s;entialem &s;ive formalem, &s;cilicet, quod ip&s;a &s;it quo aliquid e&s;t tale, e. g. &s;apientia in nobis e&s;t Accidens, hoc e&s;t imperfectionis: &s;ed quod ip&s;a &s;it quo aliquid e&s;t &s;a|piens, hoc non e&s;t imperfectionis, &s;ed e&s;&s;entialis rationis &s;apientiae. In divinis autem nihil e&s;t forma; &s;ecundum illam duplicem rationem imperfectionis, quia nec Informans, nec pars: est tamen ibi &s;apientia in quantum e&s;t quo illud in quo ip&s;a e&s;t, e&s;t &s;apiens, &amp; hoc non per aliquam compo&s;itionem,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Sent. 1. di&s;t. 8. Q.</HI> 3.</P>
<P>Some think yet clearer Arguments might be fetcht from the Hypo&s;tatical Uni|on, from the Acts of generation and &s;piration, or Love, whereby the Son is be|gotten of the Father, and the holy Gho&s;t proceedeth from the Father and the Son, and from the di&s;tinction of Per&s;ons in the Trinity. But I will &s;top here (as having run further then I intended) le&s;t you &s;hould mi&s;-interpret me, and think, that I own all the&s;e Arguments that I touch upon. I know what D. <HI>Twi&s;s</HI> again&s;t <HI>Pennotus</HI> hath &s;aid to one or two of them, and what the Schoolmen com|monly &s;ay to the &s;ame&punc; I mention the&s;e only to &s;hew that a full or clear &s;oluti|on of the&s;e doubts is not al&s;o facile and obvious, as you &s;eem to ima|gine.</P>
<P>I mu&s;t again intreat you, and every ingenious Reader, to fa&s;ten no opinion on me, but what I own, at lea&s;t none which I di&s;claim. If I mu&s;t be of one &s;ide in this Controver&s;ie, I will be of Mr. <HI>Kendals</HI> &s;ide, and &s;ay, that God hath but one act immanent, and that is Eternal. But my thoughts are, that we know not what we talk of when we &s;peak thus, and therefore I will not be of any &s;ide in this.</P>
<P>I think, 1. That God hath no Act at all in proper &s;peech: but both Acting, and Under&s;tanding, and Willing are by a very, very, very low remote Analogy a&s;cribed to him.</P>
<P N="2">2. Yet I am ready to think, that as we are fain for our own under&s;tanding, to &s;peak of God as Acting, Under&s;tanding, Willing, Loving, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and al&s;o for our own under&s;tanding to di&s;tingui&s;h his Perfections, Properties, Acts, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> which are but one, &s;o may and mu&s;t we as much &s;peak of &s;ome of his Acts, as begin|ning and ending (which yet perhaps do not in them&s;elves:) For the Rea&s;on and Nece&s;&s;ity &s;eems to be the &s;ame. For becau&s;e the word [Knowledge or Under|&s;tanding] is fir&s;t u&s;ed and applied to mans act of Knowledge, and &s;ignifieth fir&s;t only &s;uch a Knowledge as is diver&s;ified by objects; yea and man can have no pro|per po&s;itive Conception of a Knowledge which is not diver&s;ified by the diver&s;ity of Objects (but onely a Negative Conception;) therefore it is that we are forced to &s;peak of Gods Knowledge (and &s;o of his Will and other Acts) as divers or di|&s;tinct: as Divines generally do. And on the &s;ame Grounds, as man hath no po&s;itive Conception of any Knowledge or Will, about mutable objects, which is not varied with the&s;e objects, as to the Being, Beginning and Ending, therefore we mu&s;t as nece&s;&s;arily denominate Gods acts about &s;uch objects, as Beginning and Ending, as we mu&s;t denominate them Divers. And &s;o we may well &s;ay, God willed from Eternity the futurition of the worlds Creation, and Chri&s;ts Death, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> But now he doth not will their futurition, but their preterition: and that he Loveth now (as believers in Chri&s;t) tho&s;e whom he before Hated as Workers of Iniquity; and that he is &s;atisfied and well-plea&s;ed in his Son, and his Sacrifice, who was not &s;o before. Me thinks Mr. <HI>K.</HI> &s;hould think this language as fit for the mouths and pens of Divines, as the former, and not to be blamed or accu&s;ed as
<PB N="30" REF="26"> erroneous, becau&s;e improper, as long as we mu&s;t &s;peak improperly of God, or not at all. And I am &s;ure that Scripture &s;peaks of God in this language, a&s;cri|bing to him Immanent acts, as new or as cea&s;ing, and as moved by exteriour cau|&s;es: Therefore this way of &s;peaking is not unfit or intolerable.</P>
<P>The Summe of all that I &s;ay therefore is but this, That we cannot conceive of Gods Immanent acts, as in them&s;elves they are (nor are they truely the &s;ame things that we conceive of, when we apply the &s;everal denominations to them:) and therefore we mu&s;t conceive of them by Re&s;emblance to the Acts of Man &s;o denominated, &s;till acknowledging the Impropriety of the terms, and di&s;claiming all tho&s;e Imperfections which in man they do expre&s;s.</P>
<P>But becau&s;e Mr. <HI>K.</HI> hath &s;poken &s;o much to this point already, its like he will take it ill if I take no notice of it. I will therefore a little in&s;i&s;t on the con&s;ide|ration of what he &s;aith on it, to Mr. <HI>Goodwin,</HI> pag. 93, 94. (but briefly, as being not to me.)</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 6.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. <HI>THis is &s;uch a Rea&s;on as mo&s;t of your Di&s;ciples needed your favour to reade a Logick Lecture to them, that they might be in a Capacity to give their Judgements on it: You not having been plea&s;ed to do it, I will for once gratifie them with a Ca&s;t of my old Office; and now &s;uppo&s;ing my &s;elf again in my Deans Chair, I gravely begin thus. That</HI> Univocum <HI>is that which is attributed to &s;everal things accord|ing to the &s;ame Name, and Nature &s;ignified by that name; as Animal to a Man and an A&s;&s;e, to which are oppo&s;ed on the one hand</HI> Aequivocum, <HI>which is attributed according to the</HI> &s;ame Name, <HI>but not &s;ignifying the &s;ame Nature, as</HI> Canis <HI>which is &s;aid of a Starre, a Bea&s;t, and a Fi&s;h: either hath the &s;ame name</HI> Canis, <HI>but their natures are as differ|ent as Heaven, Earth and Water. On the other hand</HI> Analogum, <HI>which is attributed according to the &s;ame Name, and as &s;ignifying the</HI> &s;ame <HI>Nature; but not in the like man|ner. Now this &s;ame</HI> Analogum <HI>is of two &s;orts; The terms are promi&s;cuou&s;ly jumbled together by the Logickmongers, but let that be,</HI> 1. Proportionis; <HI>when the &s;ame Name is given to things of the</HI> Like, <HI>but not the</HI> &s;ame <HI>Nature: as Laughing,</HI> &amp;c&punc; 2. Attri|butionis: <HI>where the &s;ame Name is given to divers things, according to the</HI> &s;ame <HI>Na|ture: but this</HI> &s;ame <HI>Nature doth not agree to them alike; but to the one fir&s;t, to the other afterwards,</HI> &s;ecundum pri&ugrave;s &amp; po&s;teri&ugrave;s: <HI>yea to the later dependantly on the fir&s;t: as Sub&s;tance and Accident are each of them</HI> Ens, <HI>a thing,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 6.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R&punc; B.</HI> HOld a little. 1. The fir&s;t part of your task, you have competently per|formed, <HI>viz.</HI> to acquaint us of the lower O<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">bs of your ancient Dig|nity: Our di&s;tance is &s;o great from the Superiour Planets, that we might never have heard of your Deans Chair, had you not happily here informed us: But I hope you had a more noble Imploiment in your Deans Chair, then this poor, common, Inferiour work, to tell men of <HI>Univocum aequivocum &amp; Analogum,</HI> and to di|&s;tingui&s;h <HI>Analogum Proportionis &amp; Attributionis:</HI> But though I had not the happi|ne&s;s to be educated at your feet, yet in this your Learned, Elaborate, Polemical writing, I may, no doubt, expect the be&s;t of your Judgement; and may conje|cture what you were wont to reade to your Pupils by that which you here &s;o <HI>grave|ly</HI> read to Mr. <HI>Goodwin.</HI> Fir&s;t, you will not, it &s;eems [jumble the terms &s;o pro|mi&s;cuou&s;ly
<PB N="31" REF="26"> as the Logickmongers do:] But, when the&s;e words had rai&s;ed my expectations of &s;ome more exqui&s;ite di&s;tribution then ordinary, or at lea&s;t of more apt terms, I am put off with the old di&s;tinction, not only common in the School|men, but in the multitudes of Logick and Metaphy&s;ick Writers, which I had thought you had di&s;dained: Not the &s;malle&s;t <HI>Senguerdius</HI> but hath it; (onely he, with many others term it, but Barbarous; whereas <HI>Keckerman</HI> terms it <HI>In&s;ipid,</HI> and <HI>Burger&s;dicius inept:</HI>) And <HI>Rutger&s;ius</HI> &s;aith, that <HI>Analogorum nomine &s;olum ea di|cuntur quae &s;ecundum proportionem apud Ari&s;totelem vocantur, prout notant interpretes ex cap. 16. po&s;t c. 15. maxime ver&ograve; ex c. 6. 1. Ethic.</HI> &amp;c. <HI>U&s;us tamen Latinae Scholae &amp; Philo&s;ophorum obtinuit, ut etiam ea quae &s;ecundum attributionem vocantur analogorum no|mine cen&s;eantur.</HI></P>
<P>But though your Di&s;tinction be very ordinary, I confe&s;&s;e there is more then ordinary in your Explication of the members: But it is of &s;uch a nature, as makes me begin to abate the apprehen&s;ions of my infelicity, in that I had never the happine&s;s to be your Auditor, and to have Learned Logick at your feet. Your <HI>Analogum in genere,</HI> is that [which is attributed according to the &s;ame name, and as &s;ignifying the <HI>&s;ame Nature,</HI> but not in the like manner.] Your <HI>Analogum pro|portionis,</HI> is [when the &s;ame name is given to things of the <HI>like, but not the &s;ame nature.] Analogum in Genere,</HI> is of the <HI>&s;ame</HI> nature, as well as Name. <HI>Analogum Proportionis,</HI> is not the <HI>&s;ame Nature,</HI> but the <HI>Like.</HI> And &s;o the nature of the <HI>Genus</HI> is not in the <HI>Species:</HI> Nay they are contrary one to the other: and onely the later member (<HI>Analogum Attributionis</HI>) remains an <HI>Analogum,</HI> and each <HI>Species</HI> receives not the definition of the <HI>Genus.</HI> If this be the Doctrine which you &s;o [Gravely deliver from your Deans Chair, I will &s;ay as you do [I cannot per&s;wade my &s;elf to leave my old Doctors to follow You.] I will even turn to poor <HI>Keckerman, Burger&s;dicius, Suarez</HI> again; yea to a <HI>Rutger&s;ius, Jacchaeus, Gorlaeus, Serguerdius, Al&s;tedius,</HI> or any body that's near me of this generation, before I will &s;wallow what I cannot dige&s;t.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 7.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. NOw if Sub&s;tance and Accident be</HI> Analoga, <HI>becau&s;e of the dependance of Ac|cidents on the Subject, then what ever is predicated of God and the Crea|ture, mu&s;t be predicated Analogically, becau&s;e the creature hath it not but by dependance on God, but God independently from the Creature: And as the Being of the Creature, is derived from God</HI> in fieri, <HI>and depends on him</HI> in facto e&s;&s;e; <HI>&s;o que&s;tionle&s;s the Knowledge of the Creature, is but a beam from the fountain of light, which is in God, and cannot longer &s;ub&s;i&s;t, then he vouch&s;afeth to pre&s;erve it by a continued irradia|tion,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 7.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. I Would rather &s;ay that Sub&s;tance and Accident are <HI>Analogata,</HI> then <HI>Analoga;</HI> but you may u&s;e your Liberty, and call the <HI>Analoga, Ana|logata.</HI> 2. I &s;hould think that it is not directly and &s;trictly [Becau&s;e of the de|pendance of Accidents on the Subject, that Sub&s;tance and Accident are <HI>Analo|gata:</HI> but becau&s;e of the Imperfect Entity which through this dependance the Ac|dents have in the more perfect Entity of the Subject. 3. It is not that mo&s;t Ge|nerall
<PB N="32" REF="27"> <HI>Analogum, [Ens</HI>] as appliable to God and the Creature, that we are now in que&s;tion of. But it is tho&s;e inferiour of [Fore-knowledge, Knowledge, Will, Election, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>] 1. Your [Becau&s;e] is un&s;ound, and I conceive your Con&s;equence is fal&s;e, <HI>viz.</HI> [then what&s;oever is predicated of God and the Crea|ture mu&s;t be predicated Analogically] Do you think that nothing may be &s;po|ken equivocally of God and the Creature? If you do, you are a &s;ingular man. 5. I hope you do not think that our knowledge depends on God, as Acci|dents on the Subject: If you do, then God hath many Accidents indeed, were that true: I had rather &s;ay plainly, that God effecteth our knowledge (by way of natural Cau&s;ation in &s;ome re&s;pect, and by moral Cau&s;ation in other re&s;pects) as that which had no Being before, then to talk of Emanation as a Beam from the fountain of Light; con&s;idering what ill u&s;e many in the&s;e times have made of the doctrine of Emanation. 6. It &s;eems by your former Conclu&s;ion [what&s;oever is predicated of God and the Creature, mu&s;t be predicated Analogically] and by your pre&s;ent predication of [The fountain of Light which is in God] that you judge [Light] or [the fountain of Light] to be predicated Analogically of God too. Which if you do, and this al&s;o mu&s;t be by Analogy of Attribution, then it &s;eems Heat, Cold, Gravity, Levity, Den&s;ity, Rarity, Compo&s;ition, or what ever is in the Creature may be thus attributed to God. 7. As to the point it &s;elf in que&s;tion, 1. I will not meddle with that old Controver&s;ie, Whe|ther <HI>Ens</HI> be &s;poken of God and the Creature Univocally, Aequivocally or Analo|gically. I have &s;een what <HI>Scotus</HI> &s;aith for his opinion in <HI>Sent. 2. di&s;t. 12. &amp; alibi. &amp; 1. di&s;t. 3. q. 1. &amp;</HI> 3. And what <HI>Anth. Andreas 4. Metaph. q.</HI> 1. Meuri&s;&s;e <HI>Metaph. Scot. l 1. Qu. 8. p. 108, &amp;c.</HI> And <HI>Phil. Faber. Faventin. Phy&s;. Scot. Theorem. 95. pag. 654, &amp;c. Rada,</HI> and others &s;ay for it: And what <HI>Occham in 1. Sent. di&s;t. 2. q.</HI> 8. And <HI>Guil. Rubio,</HI> &s;ay for the Nominals opinion: And what <HI>Cajetan</HI> &s;aith again&s;t the Scoti&s;ts. (By which Scoti&s;ts the &s;en&s;e of Univocation, Aequivocation, and Ana|logy, is a little more &s;ubtilly opened, then M^r <HI>K.</HI> doth out of his Deans Chair.) But the Que&s;tion that I &s;peak to, is onely how farre <HI>Intelligere, Velle</HI> and <HI>Agere,</HI> may be Attributed to God. 2. And for the di&s;tribution of <HI>Analoga,</HI> and the &s;en&s;e of Analogy, I think, it will be long ere the Chair-men are agreed. <HI>Meu|ri&s;&s;e</HI> out of <HI>Rubio</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Univocum opponi &s;oli aequivoco, non ver&ograve; Analogo, &amp; denomi|nativo: quia Univocum &s;e habet ad aequivocum &s;i cut Unum ad Multa: Unum autem pro|pri&egrave; &s;olum multis opponitur: &s;e hahet autem ad Analogum &amp; denominativum, tanquam veluti &s;uperius ad &s;ua inferiora: Quia Univocum aliud e&s;t purum, aliud e&s;t non purum: Non purum e&s;t aut Analogum, aut Denominativum. Nullum &s;uperius autem oppenitur &s;uis in|ferioribus: Itaque &V;nivocum non opponitur Analogo &amp; Denominativo; &s;ed ab Analogo distinguitur tanquam Univocum purum, &amp; &agrave; Denominativo &V;nivo|cum quidditativum, &s;eu illud quod e&s;t &amp; praedicatum &V;nivocum &amp; Univoc&egrave; prae|dicatur.</HI> Others innumerate <HI>Analoga</HI> with the <HI>Homonyma,</HI> di&s;tinct from <HI>Synonima.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Goclenius</HI> (who &s;peaks largely of it) gives this di&s;tribution, <HI>Lexic. Philo&s;. p.</HI> 100. I think in fitter terms then Mr. <HI>Kendal.</HI></P>
<LIST>
<LABEL>Analoga &s;unt Proportione</LABEL>
<ITEM><LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Propri&acirc;: ut Ens, bonum, principium, natura, motus,</HI> &amp;c.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Impropria</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Attributionetantum: ut &s;anum ad animal &amp; medica|mentum.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Tran&s;lataproportione: Ri&s;us, comparatione bominis &amp; prati.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
</LIST>
<PB N="33" REF="27">
<P>But I think poor contemptible <HI>Keckerman</HI> and <HI>Burger&s;dicius</HI> have better explain|ed and di&s;tributed <HI>Homonyma</HI> and <HI>Analoga,</HI> then all that ever I had the hap to be acquainted with, not excepting the &s;ubtille&s;t Scoti&s;ts. 3. As for the application hereof to our Que&s;tion, I &s;till affirm, That the thing which the word [Know|ledge] is &s;poken of, in God, is not only more eminently and perfectly in him then the Creature, but is only in him, and not in the creature at all: And the thing which the word Knowledge is &s;poken of, or doth &s;ignifie in man, is not at all <HI>formaliter</HI> in God, but there is in him &s;omething of an Infinite, tran&s;cendent Excellency above it, which makes it u&s;ele&s;s; and in God it would be Imperfecti|on: And therefore it may be &s;aid to be in God <HI>eminenter non formaliter:</HI> The word [Knowledge] is fir&s;t u&s;ed to &s;ignifie the knowledge of man: It is tran&s;lated to pre&s;s to us that Incomprehen&s;ible perfection of God, which we cannot otherwi&s;e conceive of or expre&s;s. Yet when ever we make u&s;e of the term, we cannot by it our &s;elves attain to a conception, po&s;itive and true, of any higher thing then &s;uch knowledge as our own, with &s;ome negative additions, for removal of the Imper|fections; as that it is Infinite, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> &s;o that man can have no true po&s;itive Con|ception of the Nature of that which in God we call Knowledge: Only he appre|hendeth it to be &s;omewhat like that which in man is called Knowledge. But Like is not the &s;ame. As <HI>Goclenius</HI> out of <HI>Ari&s;tot. <GAP DESC="foreign"> non &s;unt <GAP DESC="foreign">. &s;imilia Analogia non &s;unt eju&s;dem generis: non &s;unt eadem genere.</HI> It is therefore a proper &s;peech to &s;ay [Knowledge is not in God] and proper to &s;ay, it is in man: But yet it is a nece&s;&s;ary &s;peech to &s;ay [God knows] becau&s;e we have no fitter ex|pre&s;&s;ion for that perfection of God, which we &s;o call. <HI>Aquin. de Veritate Mater.</HI> z^d^a <HI>Qu.</HI> 1. &s;aith, <HI>Et quia nulla Ratio &s;ignificata per ip&s;um nomen definit ip&s;um Deum, nullum nomen &agrave; nobis impo&s;itum e&s;t propri&egrave; nomen ejus; &s;ed e&s;t propri&egrave; creaturae quae de|finitur ratione &s;ignificata per nomen: Et tamen i&s;ta nomina quae &s;uns Creaturarum nomina Deo attribuuntur &s;ecundum quod in Creaturis aliqua &s;imilitudo ejus repre&s;entatur.</HI> The third Opinion which he there rejecteth is, That Knowledge is attributed to God Metaphorically, as Anger is; again&s;t which he oppo&s;eth his fourth, <HI>Et ideo aliter dicendum e&s;t, quod &s;cientia Deo attributa &s;ignificat aliquid quod in Deo e&s;t.</HI>] As if the&s;e might not well con&s;i&s;t! Even a Metaphorical expre&s;&s;ion doth expre&s;&s;e &s;omething that is in God, though it expre&s;&s;e it but Metaphorically. And in <HI>Qu. undecima,</HI> he hath no better an&s;wer to the fifth Objection, which is drawn from [the great|er di&s;tance between God and us, then between <HI>Ens Creatum &amp; non Ens</HI>] then this, <HI>Ad</HI> 5^m <HI>dicendum, quod Enti &amp; non Enti aliquid &s;ecundum analogiam convenit: quod ip|&s;um non ens analogic&egrave; dicitur Ens: ut dicitur in 4^o Metaph. &V;nde nec di&s;tantia quae est inter creaturam &amp; Deum communitatem analogic&egrave; impedire pote&s;t.</HI> If the Analogy between Gods Acts, Knowledge, Will, and ours, be no nearer then between <HI>Ens &amp; non ens,</HI> &s;ure it is not &s;uch as you imagine, and here expre&s;s. And <HI>contra Gentil. l. 1. c.</HI> 31. he confe&s;&s;eth, that <HI>in omni nomine&agrave; nobis dicto, quantum ad modum &s;ignandi imperfectio invenitur quae Deo non competit, quamois res &s;ignata aliquo modo eminenti Deo conveniat.</HI> Now <HI>&s;cire, velle, agere,</HI> a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e terms properly fitted only to mans imperfect Mode of Knowing, Willing, Acting and do afford us no po&s;itive Conception of any other: &s;o that if we could devi&s;e &s;ome <HI>genus</HI> which did comprehend Gods acts <HI>perfect&egrave;</HI> and mans <HI>imperfect&egrave;,</HI> as <HI>Ens</HI> doth &s;ub&s;tance and Accident, yet that mu&s;t not be Know|ledge or Will: For the&s;e are the proper names of the <HI>Genus imperfectum:</HI> As if you &s;hould &s;ay, <HI>Sub&s;tantia e&s;t Accidens.</HI> A certain kinde of Comprehen&s;ion of the Crea|ture God hath, who&s;e Nature being to us unknown, the proper name is unknown too, and therefore we are fain to call it by the proper name of mans comprehen|&s;ion,
<PB N="34" REF="28"> <HI>i. e.</HI> Intellection and Science. And all Divines confe&s;s, that as to the or|der of knowing, and &s;o as to the name we mu&s;t fir&s;t begin with the creature, to whom the name is fir&s;t applicable. So <HI>Aquinas contra Gentil. l. 1. c. 35. Quia ex re|bus aliis in Dei cognitionem pervenimus, res nominatim de Deo &amp; aliis rebus dictorum, per prius e&s;t in Deo &s;ecundum &s;uum modum; &s;ed ratio nominis per po&s;terius: unde &amp; no|minari dicitur &agrave; &s;uis cau&s;atis.</HI> So <HI>Goclenius Lexic. Philo&s;oph. de Analog. Duo &s;unt di|&s;tinguenda; nimirum res ip&s;ae per nomina &s;ignificatae, &amp; nominum impo&s;itio. Ad res ip&s;as quod attinet, prius ex de Deo prae dicantur, quam de creaturis. Atque hic propri&egrave; ordo e&s;t &amp; convenientia, quam habent creaturae ad Deum; cujus ordinis cau&s;a dicuntur nomina Analogic&egrave; de Deo &amp; de Creaturis praedicari. Quod vero attinet ad nominum Rationem &amp; Impo&s;itionem prius iis nominibus app<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">llatae &s;ucrunt res creatae quam Deus. Quare quod dicimus analogic&egrave; praedicari nomina de Deo &amp; de Creaturis, quia prius de Deo quam de Creaturis: de Analogia reali &s;eu &s;ecundum rem, non autem &s;ecundum no|minis rationem intelligendum e&s;t. Zanchy</HI> hath the &s;ame words, who&s;e they are fir&s;t I know not. How fit a &s;peech this is, <HI>de Analogia reali,</HI> I leave to others to judge: but all grant that the Name is fir&s;t applied to the Creature, and thence to God. Now all this holds of meer Metaphorical expre&s;&s;ions.</P>
<P>To u&s;e <HI>Burger&s;dicius</HI> di&s;t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ibution, I yield that the&s;e names applied to God and the Creature, are not <HI>Homonyma &agrave; ca&s;u,</HI> (&s;uch as <HI>Aquinas cont Gentil. ubi &s;up.</HI> expre&s;|&s;eth his meer aequivocals to be) but <HI>&agrave; con&s;ilio.</HI> But whether the <HI>Ratio Homonymiae</HI> be <HI>in Rebus,</HI> or <HI>in nobis,</HI> is not ea&s;ie certainly to determine. <HI>Keckerman</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Ambigua ex &s;imilitudine conceptus e&s;t, cum rebus toto genere diver&s;is, ut Deo &amp; Crea|turis, idem nomen tribuitur ex cognatione quam mens format. Nimirum intellectus no|&s;ter ut atque idcirc&ograve; in Deo nihil concipit direct&egrave;, &s;ed obliqu&egrave; ex &s;imili|tudine quadam, &amp; imagine rei &s;initae tanquam objecti &s;ibi congruentis. Hinc a nobis Deo &amp; attributis ejus voces certae, propriae ac direct<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> imponi nequiverunt, &s;ed indirectae tan|tum, homonymae, &amp; ex &s;imilitudine e&acirc; qua Deus nobis reprae&s;entatur in creaturis tanquam effectis, quae reprae&s;entatio valde imperfecta e&s;t. Nomen</HI> Jehova, <HI>i. e exi&s;tentis, &s;ibi ip&s;i impo&s;uit Deus, at nos ne id quidem direct&egrave; concipimus: reliqua autem quae Deo tribuimus, ut mi&s;ericordiam, Ju&s;titiam,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>cju&s;modi vocibus exprimimus quae direct&egrave; impo&s;itae &s;unt virtutibus hominum &s;ignificandis, indirect&egrave; autem ad Dcum pertinent, quatenus nos tales in Deo virtutes &s;imilitudine earum quae in hominibus &s;unt virtutum concipimus. &V;nde non min&ugrave;s pic quam &s;cite Cyrillus, in his quae de Deo dicuntur, Maxima &s;cientia e&s;t Ig|norantiam confiteri: &amp;</HI> Augu&s;tinus, <HI>Deus, inquit, magnus est, &s;ed &s;ine quantitate, Bonus, &s;ed &s;ine qualitate: ut ver&ograve; &agrave; nobis magnum &s;ine quantitate, bonum &s;ine qualitate direct&egrave; &amp; plen&egrave; concipi, e&s;t impo&s;&s;ibile,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Et</HI> Julius Scaliger, <HI>Nullis, ait, vo|cibus tam plen&egrave; Deum &s;ignificamus, quam iis quae Ignorantiam no&s;tram prae|tendunt.</HI></P>
<P>But &s;uppo&s;e it be granted, that the <HI>Ratio Homonymiae</HI> is not only <HI>in nobis, &s;ed in rebus,</HI> the que&s;tion will remain, Whether it be <HI>ob inaequalem generis attributionem,</HI> or only <HI>ob &s;imilitudinem, vel mutuam rerum ad &s;e invicem habitudinem?</HI> and &s;o be Tro|pical? Mr. <HI>K.</HI> a&s;&s;erteth the former (under the name of Analogy of Attribu|tion.) The Scoti&s;ts have long defended then Doctors A&s;&s;ertion, that <HI>Deus non e&s;t in genere. Vid.</HI> Fab. Faventin. <HI>Phy&s;. Scot. Theorem.</HI> 96. his Vindication again&s;t <HI>Greg. Ariminen&s;is</HI> and <HI>Bacconius:</HI> and many others of them have done this at large. So doth <HI>Wickleff.</HI> in his Trialog.</P>
<P>And if this hold, then nothing can be attributed to God and the Creature by this Analogy, <HI>per inaequalem generis attributionem.</HI> Yea <HI>Aquinas</HI> him&s;elf oft &s;aith,
<PB N="35" REF="28"> <HI>Deus non e&s;t in genere</HI> (as <HI>Sarnanus</HI> notes) <HI>in</HI> 1. p. q. 3. a. 5. <HI>&amp;</HI> 1. d. 8. q. 4. a. 2. 3^m. <HI>&amp; 1. cont. Gent.</HI> c. 25. though after in <HI>q. de Potentia</HI> q. 7. a. 3. <HI>ad ult. Concedit Deum e&s;se Genere &s;ubstantiae reductiv&egrave;:</HI> which <HI>Scotus</HI> refuteth. So <HI>E&s;tius</HI> in <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">^m Sent. d. 8. &sect;. 10. denieth God to be <HI>in ullo genere.</HI> And <HI>Sarnanus</HI> hath no more to &s;ay for it in his Conciliation (<HI>pag.</HI> 15) then this, <HI>E&s;&s;e in genere &s;tat dupliciter: primo modo ut pars &s;ubjectiva contenta in illo genere: Et &s;ic negatur Deum e&s;&s;e in genere. Secundo mo|do, ut principium Continens ip&s;um Genus: Et hoc modo Deus per appropriationem e&s;t in Genere &s;ub&s;tantiae. Vid.</HI> Gab. Biel. 1. <HI>Sent. di&s;t. 8. q.</HI> 1. But this is not for God to be <HI>in genere,</HI> but for that <HI>Genus</HI> to be in God.</P>
<P>As <HI>Burger&s;dicius</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Omnium longi&s;&s;im&egrave; &agrave; Synonymis ab&s;unt homonyma a Ca&s;u, quae&abque; cau&s;am homonymiae habent in nobis: propri&ugrave;s ad &s;ynonymorum naturam accedunt Tropi|ca, ac imprimis Analoga: at omnium proxim&egrave; quae ambigua &s;unt ob inaequalem attributionem.</HI> That the&s;e words are not &s;poken of God and the creature <HI>univoc&egrave;</HI> all of us agree, and the Schoolmen have fully evinced. Al&s;o that they are not &s;poken <HI>pur&egrave; aequivoc&egrave;,</HI> we are al&s;o agreed, and the &s;aid Schoolmen have evinced (as particularly <HI>Aquin. in &s;um. de Verit. ubi &s;up.</HI> by many Rea&s;ons: And <HI>Zanchius de Natura Dei</HI> borrows many of them.) But which of the other kindes of homonymy they belong to, is the doubt. Mr. <HI>K.</HI> thinks that which of all other is the neare&s;t to &s;ynonymy: I think not &s;o: but rather to the Tropical or Analogical, &s;trictly &s;o called, that is, <HI>vel propter &s;imilitudinem &s;implicem, vel proportionem</HI> (if not &s;ome of them, to tho&s;e that have the <HI>Rationem homonymiae in nobis) Jacchaeus</HI> &s;aith (<HI>Metaph. l. 1. c. 6.) Ego vero mallem i&s;tam Analogiam r<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ferre ad proportional<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tatis Analogiam, non Meta|phoricam illam (quomodo videre attribuitur oculo &amp; menti) &s;ed propriam, quomodo prin|cipium dicitur de corde, &amp; fundamento domus.</HI> So he di&s;claims Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s Analogy of Attribution: If the thing be not utterly uncertain to us, who know &s;o little of Gods nature. But that we may venture on a conjecture, I &s;hould rather &s;et the Creature at a greater di&s;tance from God then they do: and think that the&s;e At|tributes are all Tropical, &s;omewhat Metonymical, but mo&s;tly Metaphorical. I never &s;aw (in <HI>Aquinas</HI> or any other Schoolman that &s;poke for it) any cogent Rea|&s;on to prove, that <HI>Intelligere, Velle, Agere, Amare,</HI> are attributed to God in any other kinde then <HI>Remini&s;ci, Gaudere, Odio habere, Ira&s;ci,</HI> &amp;c. Only a gradual dif|ference, I ea&s;ily acknowledge, <HI>viz.</HI> That <HI>Intelligere &amp; Velle</HI> having le&s;&s;e Imperfe|ction, have therefore le&s;&s;e impropriety. And who knows not that there is a wide difference of this &s;ort among Metaphors, &s;ome being very near, and &s;ome &s;o farre fetcht, as to be Catachre&s;tical <HI>Durandus</HI> &s;aith (<HI>in 1. &s;ent di&s;t. 34. q. 4) Nullum nomen attribuimus Deo ni&s;i ex Creaturis: non enim ponimus nomen ni&s;i rei quam intelli|gimus; &amp; quia non intelligimus <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> eum, ni&s;i ex creaturis, &amp; tantum quantum concludi|mus excreaturis, ideo nullum nomen imponimus Deo ni&s;i excreaturis, &amp; quantum ad illa, quae concludimus convenire Deo excreaturis: con&s;tat autem quod non omnia nomina quae attribuimus Deo dicuntur de eo tran&s;lativ&egrave; &amp; metaphori<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&egrave;,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Solum autem illa nomi|na dicuntur de Deo tran&s;lativ&egrave; &amp; metaphoric&egrave; quae &s;ignificant speciales qu dditates rerum creatarum: vel perfectiones &s;ecundum modum creaturis convenientem, ut Leo, Agnus, Sentire,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Quia res &s;ignificata per haec nomina non e&s;t in Deo, &s;ed aliqua ejus &s;imili|tudo, ut fortitudo, man&s;uc<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">udo, &amp; cognitio &s;ingularium, quae in nobis pertinet ad &s;en&s;um.</HI> But I would fain &s;ee it proved, That <HI>Intelligere, Velle, Agere,</HI> do not as properly &s;ignifie <HI>perfectiones &s;ecundum modum Creaturis convenientem,</HI> as <HI>&s;entire</HI> doth? And when we &s;ay <HI>&s;egetes fluctuant,</HI> fluctnation is no more proper to the motion of the waters, then <HI>Intelligere, Velle, Agere,</HI> are to the perfections and action of man, or other rational creatures. And whereas they &s;ay that the terms are applied to
<PB N="36" REF="29"> God, with a Remotion of the Imperfections which they imply in us, I an&s;wer, So they may &s;ay of tho&s;e lower terms, which they confe&s;&s;e to be Metaphorical, on|ly allowing a gradual difference of impropriety. Nor doth it follow therefore that there is no truth in the&s;e expre&s;&s;ions of God, or that they are no helps to our knowledge of him, or means of demon&s;tration. For Metaphors are not as pure equivocals: There's &s;ome common rea&s;on in the &s;imilitude, though in the fir&s;t and proper &s;en&s;e the name be proper to one. When we &s;ay, <HI>Segetes fluctuant,</HI> we expre&s;&s;e not only Motion, wherein both agree, but a motion of the Corn like that of the Water. I think, as I &s;aid before, that it is no more proper to call God <HI>Scientem, Volentem, Agentem,</HI> then to call the Firmament a Nut-&s;hell, becau&s;e both &s;eem to have a convexity or concavity, or contain &s;omething el&s;e within, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Or to call the Sunne <HI>Reptile,</HI> or a creeping thing, becau&s;e it moves, and &s;o do creeping things: or then it is proper to call Knowledge, Light, or to put <HI>Video</HI> for <HI>Intelligo</HI> (as Mr. <HI>K.</HI> cals God the fountain of Light before.) The Scripture &s;aith, <HI>God is Light:</HI> yet I think this will be ea&s;ily confe&s;&s;ed a Metaphor: and I think it is but <HI>Metaphora propinquior,</HI> to &s;ay, <HI>Deus Intelligit, Vult, Agit,</HI> &amp;c. And this I judge after long con&s;ideration of what <HI>Aquinas</HI> hath &s;aid, 1. <HI>q. 14. a. 1. &amp; q. 19. a. 1. &amp; alibi:</HI> and many other Schoolmen to the like purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>Shall I adde one Argument for the Negative (that it is not by Analogy of At|tribution, that Knowledge, Will, Power, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> are attributed to God and the Creature; as <HI>Ens</HI> is to Sub&s;tance and Accident) <HI>ad hominem</HI> &s;pecially? That Knowledge which is the &s;ame thing with Will and Power, cannot be the one of the Analogates with our Knowledge which is not the &s;ame; in this kinde of A|nalogy <HI>ob inaequalem generis di&s;tributionem:</HI> (&s;uppo&s;ing Knowledge to be the <HI>Ge|nus Analogum.</HI>) But Gods Knowledge is maintained by tho&s;e that I di&s;pute with, to be the &s;ame with his Will and Power) many &s;ay, they differ but <HI>denominatione extrin&s;ec&acirc;:</HI>) Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> For the proof of the <HI>major,</HI> con&s;ider: El&s;e on the &s;ame grounds [Power] might be thus analogically &s;poken of Gods Knowledge and mans Power: For where there is no difference in the Thing, there needs to be none in the Name, as requi&s;ite from the Nature of the Thing (but only from &s;ome extrin&s;ick re&s;pect or u&s;e) But Power may not Analogically be &s;poken <HI>de Pote&s;tate humana, &amp; &s;cientia divina Ergo,</HI> &amp;c. Common rea&s;on and u&s;e of &s;peech confirms the <HI>minor.</HI> It &s;eems therefore to be evident truth, that as it is from &s;i|militude, or &s;ome Tropical re&s;pect, that Gods Immanent acts, have divers names, rather then one alone: &s;o is it from the &s;ame rea&s;on that they have the&s;e particular names, rather then other: And con&s;equently that the&s;e names are not <HI>Analoga inaequalis Attributionis naturae communis;</HI> but <HI>Analoga Proportionis,</HI> or Tro|pical. <HI>Durandus (in &s;ent. 1. di&s;t. 2. q.</HI> 2.) &s;aith, <HI>Alia e&s;t opinio quae mihi videtur ve|rior,</HI> viz. <HI>quod di&s;tinctio attributorum, &s;ecundum rationem non pote&s;t &s;umi, ni&s;i per com|parationem ad aliquam realem diver&s;itatem actu exi&s;tentem in creaturis, vel po&s;&s;ibilem. Quod prob. 1. &s;ic. Differentia Rationis, ni&s;i &s;it fal&s;a &amp; vana, licet &s;it completive ab intel|lectu, oportet tamen quod habeat fundamentum in re: &s;ed differentia attributorum &s;ecun|dum rationem non pote&s;t habere &s;ufficiens fundamen<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters"> in natura divina ab&s;olut&egrave; accepta; ni&s;i comparetur ad realem diver&s;itatem quae in creaturis e&s;t, vel e&s;&s;e pote&s;t, ergo differentia attributorum divinorum &s;ecundum rationem, non potest ver&egrave; &s;umi ni&s;i per comparationem ad creaturas. Major patet: ratio enim, quam intellectus format, ni&s;i fundetur aliqualiter in re, ficta e&s;t &amp; vana,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Vide reliq.</HI></P>
<P>I will only adde the words of <HI>Burger&s;dicius Metaphy&s;. l. 2. c.</HI> 8. &sect;. 1. <HI>&s;equuntur ea (attributa) quae creaturis communicari po&s;se diximus, &s;altem <GAP DESC="foreign">: quae
<PB N="37" REF="29"> tamen analogia non in ip&s;is Dei attributis, &s;ed in ip&s;orum effectis fine operationibus quae|renda e&s;t. Nam cum attributa infinita &s;int, aeque atque ip&s;a Dei e&s;sentia, &amp; at|tributa incommunicabilia, nullam habent c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m creaturis <GAP DESC="foreign">, ni&s;i in &s;uis &s;uis operationibus circa objecta Creata &amp; finita.</HI> Apply this to Immanent Acts.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 8.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K.</HI> pag. 94. <HI>IF Fore-knowledge in God and the Creature be not univocally the &s;ame, as &s;urely they are not, then is this Fore-knowledge attributed to God and the Creature, either Equivocally or Analogically: If Equivocally, then hath the Fore-knowledge of God and the Creature only the &s;ame Name: But that is not &s;o; for God, I hope, fore-knows as</HI> truly <HI>as the Creature, and the Creature may &s;ometimes truly</HI> fore-know. <HI>So that here is more then a nominal agreement between Gods and the Crea|tures fore-knowledge. It remains therefore that this fore-knowledge be attributed to God and the Creature Analogically: but is this Analogie either of Proportion or Attribu|tion? If of Proportion, then either God or the Creature is is &s;aid to fore-know, but ei|ther Metaphorically or Metonymically. If only Metaphorically; I pray which of them is but Metaphorically &s;aid to fore-know? Not the Creature,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>And &s;urely much le&s;s may God be only Metaphorically &s;aid to fore-know the&s;e, and all other things that &s;hall come to pa&s;s in all Ages. If only Metonymically, as &s;ome things are &s;aid to be healthy, becau&s;e they have the &s;igns of &s;anity in them, (I am bold to u&s;e the Boyes in&s;tance in this ca&s;e) Is either God or the Creature only Metonymically &s;aid to fore-know? Not the Creature,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Not God, for he is the Author of our fore-knowledge: and therefore though his e&s;&s;ence be not the &s;ubject of his fore-knowledge, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">or his fore knowledge an Accident of his Nature, yet is he &s;aid to fore-know without being beholden to any &s;uch poor Trope for it. It re&s;ts therefore that fore-knowledge is attributed to God by more then this Analogie of Propor|oion, and con&s;equently by that of Attribution Now I demand which is the</HI> famo&s;ius Analogatum? <HI>Gods fore-knowledge, or the Creatures? Que&s;tionle&s;s Gods: there be|ing infinitely greater Cau&s;e to &s;et the Crown on Gods fore-knowledge, then on that of the Creatures, then there is to &s;et it on &s;ub&s;tance rather then accident. If &s;o,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>then on|ward, as</HI> Analogatum per &s;e po&s;i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">um &s;tat per famo&s;iori Analogato, <HI>&s;o true fore-knowledge mentioned by it &s;elf, mu&s;t alwayes be con&s;trued of the fore-knowledge of God: and therefore fore-knowledge is mo&s;t properly attributable to God. And thus being now willing to re&s;ign my place,</HI> Haec &s;ufficiant pro nunc.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 8.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> IF I had once done with you, I would take heed of dealing with a Chair|man again in ha&s;te, for your &s;ake: for I finde I run upon a great di&s;ad|vantage. For the credit of &s;uch mens under&s;tandings is &s;o great with them&s;elves at lea&s;t, that they need no Argument, but their bare affirmation to carry the Cau&s;e. Your &s;ole Argument [<HI>&s;ic dico</HI>] doth put me harder to it, then if you had many: For what to &s;ay to this, I do not well know. Di&s;pute again&s;t it, I cannot: and to &s;et my Negation again&s;t your affirmation, will not do, till we &s;tand on even ground.</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>Aquinas de verit.</HI> and many another Schoolman (and <HI>Zanchy</HI> out of them) might have helpt you to more cogent Arguments, again&s;t meer aequivocal deno|mination. When you &s;peak of Gods fore-knowing, as [truly] that word [truly]
<PB N="38" REF="30"> is either oppo&s;ed to <HI>feigned</HI> and <HI>fal&s;e,</HI> or to <HI>improperly:</HI> that in God which the term [fore-knowledge] doth denote, is <HI>Truly</HI> in him, and him alone, but that which the word [fore-knowledge] doth properly and primarily &s;ignifie, is not in God.</P>
<P N="2">2. Our <HI>Rabbi</HI>&punc;s (as you call them <HI>ab alto</HI> with a &s;mile) do &s;eem to us punies, to make a fuller di&s;tribution then you; as I have before &s;hewed: and therefore we take yours to be defective, and con&s;equently your rea&s;oning void: I have told you of divers that plea&s;e me better.</P>
<P N="3">3. How greedily did I reade on, and follow you at the heels, to &s;ee how you proved that it is not &s;poken of God Metaphorically? and when I come to the bu|&s;ine&s;&s;e, What's the proof? Why you &s;ay [&s;urely much le&s;&s;e may God be onely metaphorically &s;aid to fore-know.] You pa&s;&s;e your word on it: And this is the knotty Argument that I cannot an&s;wer, becau&s;e I am not of your &s;tanding in the Univer&s;ity: A little more of the Univer&s;ity would have done me no harm (as you &s;ay) when I am to deal with this kinde of Argument.</P>
<P N="4">4. Our Tutor <HI>Burger&s;dieius</HI> told us, I remember, that <HI>in caetoris tropis non minus e&s;t homonymiae locus, quam in Metaphora.</HI> And therefore Metaphorical and Metony|mical, are not a &s;ufficient enumeration.</P>
<P N="5">5. Do not think ever the wor&s;e of your &s;elf for u&s;ing the Boyes in&s;tance: for (as you have partly &s;alved your credit by intimating that you are above it, &s;o) <HI>Aquinas, Scotus,</HI> and mo&s;t of the Schoolmen that I have read, be&s;ides <HI>Zanchius,</HI> and many another of our great Divines, do make u&s;e of the &s;ame in&s;tance: And to play with this bigger &s;ort of Boyes, is no &s;uch di&s;grace to you.</P>
<P N="6">6. Here I meet with a thing that runs in the form of a Rea&s;on: [for he is the Author of our fore-knowledge] therefore he fore-knoweth not onely Metonymi|cally. I confe&s;&s;e the Conclu&s;ion is true; but I &s;ee not the rea&s;on of the con&s;e|quence. As I remember a Metonymy of the effect is, when the efficient is &s;ignified by the name of the effect, either by a Verb, as <HI>pallet pro metuit,</HI> or an Adjective, as <HI>mors pallida;</HI> or a Sub&s;tantive, as <HI>&s;celus pro &s;cele&s;to</HI> (I purpo&s;ely choo&s;e the Boyes examples, as be&s;t be&s;eeming me.) And I have heard men often call Mr. <HI>Nath. Ward, Di&s;colliminium,</HI> and the &s;imple Cobler: And the Author of that Comedy, by the name of <HI>Ignoramus.</HI> I confe&s;&s;e it is a good Ar|gument [He is the Author of our fore-knowledge, therefore he hath fore-know|ledge <HI>eminenter,</HI> or &s;omewhat that is more excellent then fore-knowledge.) But I dare not &s;ay, that God hath formally in him&s;elf what&s;oever he is the Author of. For he is the Author of Nutrition, Augmentation Compo&s;ition, of Sorrow, of Fear, of Hell, of Worms, Toads and Vipers. But it was the former (the Metaphorical Denomination, and al&s;o that of &s;trict proportion, which &s;ome di|&s;tingui&s;h from the Metaphorical) which I had hoped you would have di&s;proved. But I mu&s;t take what will be had.</P>
<P N="7">7. You think you plead for the Glory of the Divine Maje&s;ty, when you tell us he need not be beholden to a poor Trope. As if we &s;hould di&s;pute, whether the Sunne do creep as <HI>reptilia</HI> do? and I &s;ay, Yes, Metaphorically: and you will &s;tand up for the honour of the Sun, and &s;ay, we deba&s;e it; and that it doth creep without being beholden to a poor Trope for it: Or if the Que&s;tion were, Whe|ther the Sunne be a Vegetative, or &s;en&s;itive creature? and I &s;ay, Yes, Metonymi|cally: for it cau&s;eth Vegetation and &s;en&s;e. And you will &s;ay, It is Vegetative without being beholden to a Trope. What a Patron is he of the honour of man|kinde, that will prove that he is a Worm, a Bea&s;t, Nothing, and his life a &s;ha|dow,
<PB N="39" REF="30"> a dream, a Weavers &s;huttle, without being beholden to a poor Trope! Yet are the&s;e un&s;peakably nearer, then the names of man and his acts, to God: for <HI>inter finitum &amp; infinitum nulla e&s;t proportio.</HI></P>
<P N="8">8. You conclude that the <HI>famo&s;ius Analogatum,</HI> is Gods fore-knowledge, your proof is [Que&s;tionle&s;s it is &s;o:] As &s;trong as the re&s;t. But, when I look fur|ther I finde &s;omewhat like a Rea&s;on: [there being Infinitely greater cau&s;e to &s;et the Crown on Gods fore-knowledge, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>] My dread of Gods mo&s;t &s;acred Ma|je&s;ty, forbiddeth me to &s;et on him &s;uch a Crown of Vanity. As if the Sun mu&s;t be the <HI>famo&s;ius Analogatum inter Reptilia,</HI> becau&s;e the Crown of [Creeping] mu&s;t be &s;et on its head! What if we &s;hould yield to you, that the term [Knowledge, Will, Action, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>] being fir&s;t Metaphorically applied to God, that yet it is partly Analogical <HI>quoad inaequalem Generis attributionem,</HI> the term expre&s;&s;ing (though improperly as to one) a Nature common to both? It would not yet fol|low, that here the more noble &s;ort, even Divine Knowledge, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> were the <HI>famo|&s;ius Analogatum:</HI> For though it be mo&s;t excellent and unexpre&s;&s;ibly glorious in it &s;elf, yet the term agreeing fir&s;t with the lower, even humane Knowledge, there|fore that is the <HI>famo&s;ius Analogatum,</HI> as being the thing mo&s;t famou&s;ly and noto|riou&s;ly meant by that term. If you ask, Whether the Sunne do gli&s;&s;en (as Glow|worms, or rotten wood) or do <HI>Rutilare</HI> or <HI>Candere?</HI> If you &s;ay, Yea; yet I think the Sunne here is not the <HI>famo&s;ius Analogatum,</HI> though the light which this word intendeth be more eminently in the Sun, then in the other things.</P>
<P>You conclude, that [true fore-knowledge mentioned by it &s;elf, mu&s;t alwayes be under&s;tood of the fore-knowledge of God.] Is that &s;o indeed?</P>
<P N="1">1. Why then do the Schoolmen generally acknowledge, that the names are all fir&s;t applicable to the Creature, though the thing be mo&s;t excellently in God?</P>
<P N="2">2. Then, it &s;eems, it is not a &s;trictly proper &s;peech to &s;ay [Man knows, or fore-knows, or Wils, or acteth:] for none of the <HI>Homonyma,</HI> are &s;poken of both, in &s;trict propriety. But if you would undertake to prove, that God may in as &s;trict propriety be &s;aid to Know, Will or Act, as man is, there are many that would undertake to prove the terms Univocal: which in mo&s;t Divines Judge|ment, would be to prove, that man is God: an opinion, which our new world in the Moon (<HI>in Anglia lunatica</HI>) have very confidently imbraced of late years.</P>
<P>In a word, Sir, my thoughts of man, and his Acts, Knowing, Willing, are &s;o low, and my thoughts of the Infinite God, &s;o high, or at a lo&s;&s;e, when I go about to have any po&s;itive, true apprehen&s;ions of his Nature, that I conceive you and I can no more tell what that is in God which we call Knowing, Willing, A|cting, then my Hor&s;e can tell what Rea&s;oning or Di&s;cour&s;e is in me, or there|abouts. And yet I believe that the Knowledge of God is eternal Life too, <HI>viz.</HI> Now (as to the beginning) to know that there is a God, and that there is &s;ome|what in Him which mans Knowledge, Will, Goodne&s;s, Ju&s;tice, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> have &s;ome exceeding, low, di&s;tant re&s;emblance of, and which we cannot better apprehend or expre&s;s then under &s;uch notions, and by &s;uch terms; it being yet in it &s;elf of more unconceivable excellency. And though I know the Schoolmen are confi|dent (without proof) that <HI>Scire, Velle,</HI> &amp;c. do expre&s;s no Imperfection, but only Modal, and therefore may be applied to God (which I conjecture will al&s;o be your Argument) yet I do not believe that A&s;&s;ertion. Comparatively to lower or equal Creatures, it may be &s;aid, that it is not Imperfection, which they expre&s;s. But
<PB N="40" REF="31"> ab&s;olutely or comparatively as to God, it is Imperfection: Not only &s;ome acci|dent or <HI>Modus,</HI> but the very thing expre&s;t by the&s;e terms, is Imperfect: El&s;e the Creature &s;hall have &s;omething equal to God, and &s;o be God. And if it were but a Modal Imperfection; yet when the term doth &s;trictly and properly expre&s;&s;e that Imperfect <HI>Modus</HI> it &s;elf, as well as the Thing, then that term cannot be applied to God any nearlier then Tropically. Knowledge, Will, Action, and all the terms fitted to man, are &s;o &s;trictly fitted to expre&s;s the humane Mode, as well as that which you &s;eparate in your Intellect, and call perfect, that it cannot be applied to one without the other, but abu&s;ively or tropically; No more then [c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ping] is applicable to the &s;wift motion of the Sun, when the term doth intimately &s;ignifie the &s;lowne&s;s and Mode of the motion, with the motion it &s;elf.</P>
<P>God forbid that I &s;hould doubt, whether that in God be Perfect, which we call Knowledge, Will, Action: But what it is that under the&s;e names of infinitely remote &s;imilitude we do expre&s;s, what earthly man can tell? Becau&s;e I believe Gods Immanent acts to be perfect, therefore I believe them not to be the &s;ame thing that man apprehendeth under the&s;e terms.</P>
<P>Oh that frail man were more acquainted with his Nothingne&s;s! then would he not dare &s;o to lift up him&s;elf in compari&s;on with his Maker! Then would not the Chri&s;tian world for &s;o many hundred years have been filled with quarrels a|bout un&s;earchable My&s;teries; and the great Divines of the Church, be the great Dividers of the Church by voluminous contentions, and cen&s;o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ious, uncharita|ble, zealous emulations about Gods &s;ecrets: They would not have fa&s;tened upon utter uncertainties, and things unrevealed, and then have &s;tiled their fancies [the Orthodox Doctrine] and reproached or quarrelled with tho&s;e that were di&s;&s;enters. The world would not have been altogether by the ears about things that they know no more then a bea&s;t knows what is the &s;oul of man; &s;uch as many of the Schoolmens writings are, and mo&s;t of tho&s;e points in which the Controver&s;ies be|tween the Arminians and anti-Arminians, the Je&s;uites and Dominicans, are unti|mately re&s;olved: Yea, and your Academ cal Chairs would have been better im|ployed: and then God would not have been &s;o provoked again&s;t them: Nor &s;hould I have needed to fear that your Chair is coming down, while I reade here that you are coming down; nor have cau&s;e to &s;alute you &s;o &s;adly at your de&s;cent, as fearing a future vacancy of your re&s;igned place.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="9" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 9.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. Pag. <HI>I Shall now &s;ee what Mr.</HI> Baxter <HI>&s;aith, though not to an&s;wer this Argu|ment, or any other, yet to detract &s;omewhat from the Reputation of the Conclu&s;ion, that there can be no new Immanent act in God, but all are Eternal.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="9" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 9.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> TO feign a wrong end to a mans &s;peeches, is u&s;ually the way to fa&s;ten on them a fal&s;e and alien &s;en&s;e. I therefore who am better acquaint|ed with my own End and meaning then M<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. <HI>K.</HI> is (as well as he knows me, by looking through his Pro&s;pective, Gla&s;s from <HI>Cornwell</HI> to <HI>Kiddermin&s;ter</HI>) &s;hall better acquaint others what was my meaning in the words, which he fa&s;tens on. And this is the true and plain Analy&s;is of my words.</P>
<P>Having affirmed Ju&s;tification to be a tran&s;ient act, and that therefore the In|ception
<PB N="41" REF="31"> of it argueth no mutation in God, I was fore't to meet with the opinion of D^r <HI>Twi&s;s,</HI> who takes it to be an Immanent Act, and therefore if it &s;hould begin <HI>de novo,</HI> it would argue a change in God. (Not &s;peaking of that <HI>in fore Con&s;cientiae.</HI>)</P>
<P>The&s;e two Conclu&s;ions therefore I took as certain, and nece&s;&s;ary to be held of every knowing Chri&s;tian.</P>
<P N="1">1. That God doth not change.</P>
<P N="2">2. That God doth not pardon or ju&s;tifie men from Eternity; (no nor from the time of Chri&s;ts death) and therefore that he doth in time ju&s;tifie and forgive men, even when they believe. The&s;e two Conclu&s;ions being Certain and nece&s;&s;ary, I take the later as a&s;&s;aulted by D. <HI>Twi&s;s;</HI> who thereby would make them &s;eem incon&s;i&s;tent.</P>
<P>His Argument is, Ju&s;tification and Remi&s;&s;ion are Immanent Acts, therefore from Eternity. To this I an&s;wer, 1. By denying the Antecedent: For I had before &s;hewed, that they are Tran&s;ient acts, and what Tran&s;ient acts they are. 2. Having premi&s;ed, that no acts are Immanent in God Po&s;itively but onely Ne|gatively (as <HI>Schibler</HI> &s;peaks;) I an&s;wered, That many doubt whether Imma|nent acts are any further Eternal then Tran&s;ient acts (which I will open anon when we come to it:) and therefore that this is not a matter of &s;uch Certainty as the Propo&s;ition oppo&s;ed is: and therefore Uncertainties mu&s;t be reduced to Cer|tainties, and not Certainties to Uncertainties: <HI>q. d.</HI> I am &s;ure God doth not pardon and Ju&s;tifie from Eternity from plain Texts of Scripture: But you are not &s;ure that all Immanent acts are Eternal any more then Tran&s;ient are; Therefore if the&s;e two Propo&s;itions were as incon&s;i&s;tent as you imagine, yet I would rather hold the former, and let go the later, then hold the latter and let go the former. Here I &s;uppo&s;ed it objected, that it is not to be endured that any &s;hould argue God of mutability: but the fore&s;aid Doctrine doth &s;o: Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> To which I an&s;wered, that there is no change in God: and they that do hold this opinion, do yet hold it is con&s;i&s;tent with Gods Immutability: and I gave two or three &s;hort touches of their rea&s;oning: If you ask me, whom I mean, I an&s;wer, I mean <HI>Lychetus, Pennottus, Franci&s;cus a Sancta Clara,</HI> and in part <HI>Suarez</HI> and <HI>Bur|ger&s;dicius,</HI> in the words which I &s;hall anon cite in his Metaphy&s;icks. And mark that I do not &s;ay, that the&s;e plead for the Inception or Ce&s;&s;ation of Immanent acts: but that Immanent acts are new as Tran&s;ient are; that is, not <HI>quoad &s;ub|&s;tantiam actus,</HI> but <HI>tran&s;itionem in objectum extraneum.</HI> For here it is &s;uppo&s;ed, that it is not tho&s;e Immanent acts, who&s;e object is God him&s;elf, which is &s;poke of, but only tho&s;e that are about the Creature; Note al&s;o, that I never thought of own|ing this opinion; but had ever owned the opinion of the Eternity of all Imma|nent acts; and &s;o farre as the matter is di&s;cernable, do hold to it &s;till: but I take the point in Que&s;tion to be pa&s;t our reach; and therefore not of &s;uch Certainty, as to encourage us to reject a plainly revealed truth, upon &s;uppo&s;ition of their in|con&s;i&s;tency.</P>
<P>After this I returned to my fir&s;t Po&s;ition, and made it my full, final An&s;wer, that Remi&s;&s;ion and Ju&s;tification are Tran&s;ient acts, and not Immanent, and that in this I had mo&s;t Divines on my &s;ide, though they did not ordina|rily explain the Nature of this Tran&s;ient Act: which thereupon I more fully explain'd.</P>
<P>Thus, Reader, I have given the true Analy&s;is of all the&s;e words about Imma|nent acts, which Mr. <HI>K.</HI> makes the occa&s;ion of his quarrel with me: and which
<PB N="42" REF="32"> he layeth &s;uch a heavy charge on. And, I think, if I had &s;aid no more to him, but onely given you this true Analy&s;is, it had been enough to &s;atisfie the im|partial, and Judicious, and to free my words from that &s;andy incoherence and &s;en&s;le&s;ne&s;s, which (not under&s;tanding them) he doth fa&s;ten on them in his charge; and to vindicate my &s;elf from tho&s;e corrupt intentions and errours which he intimates.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="10" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 10.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. <HI>FIr&s;t, &s;aith he, Acts have not the re&s;pect of the Adjunct to its Subject, but an effect to its cau&s;e: Therefore new Immanent Acts will not inferre an al|teration in God: Therefore,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>To this antecedent, I an&s;wer, that no Act is properly an effect, or relates as &s;uch to the Cau&s;e: the Act is rather the Cau&s;ality then the effect, as Mr.</HI> Baxter <HI>may plea&s;e to learn from his great Doctors in the Metaphy&s;icks, whom I think enough to name in general, though he u&s;eth to quote them &s;o exactly, as it were the Chapter and ver&s;e.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="10" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 10.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> IF I have learning enough to under&s;tand your meaning, you endeavour in the&s;e words to prove two Conclu&s;ions. The fir&s;t and principal (and I think, the whole &s;cope of your writing) is, that I am Ignorant and unlearned. The &s;econd and &s;ubordinate is, that Immanent Acts are certainly Eternal, or that the change of them will inferre a change in God. The fir&s;t you prove by my Pe|dantick citing of <HI>Schibler</HI> and <HI>Burger&s;dicius,</HI> the Boyes companions, and that as if they were Doctors in the Metaphy&s;icks, and that &s;o exactly, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> which you think it enough to name. To this I an&s;wer, 1. Your Argument labours of two di&s;ea&s;es, 1. Ob&s;curity: which may make &s;ome, that know you not, conjecture that your de&s;ign was &s;carce hone&s;t, which you &s;o carry under hand by intimations, when yet it &s;eems the great Cau&s;e of this your undertaking: For my part, I think you would never have mentioned my name here, but to this end. 2. Of Need|le&s;ne&s;s: If you had &s;tooped &s;o low as to con&s;ult me in this bu&s;ine&s;s, and opened to me your de&s;ign, I could by three lines have &s;aved you the writing of the&s;e leaves: but that's too late: But yet I may prevent your voluminous labour perhaps for the future, if I do it yet. Be it known therefore to all men by the&s;e pre&s;ents that I <HI>R. B.</HI> do confe&s;s my &s;elf ignorant and unlearned, e&s;pecially compared with &s;uch as Mr. <HI>K.</HI> and his <HI>Genius. Habetis con&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tentem reum.</HI> What need you any more Witne&s;&s;es? I hope now you may &s;ave the main labour of your next writing.</P>
<P>Yet, let me tell you the rea&s;on of my crime, a little more fully. I take the com|mon good to be the be&s;t. I have about thirty T<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">actates of Metaphy&s;icks by me (an ill workman, that needs &s;o many tools) and I value the&s;e two or three Com|mon ones which I cited before all the re&s;t: and I think &s;o do the Schools that u&s;e them mo&s;t commonly. Nor do I &s;ee any great rea&s;on hitherto to take Mr. <HI>K.</HI> for a more learned, authentick, unque&s;tionable Doctor in the Metaphy&s;icks, then <HI>Suarez, Schibler</HI> or <HI>Burger&s;dicius,</HI> as highly as I value him above my &s;elf. Nor indeed did I ever before this, hear of his name (to my remembrance;) much le&s;&s;e of his Metaphy&s;ical writings. But as &s;oon as ever Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s Metaphy&s;icks come
<PB N="43" REF="32"> to my hands, if I do not bow to them, <HI>&amp; ve&s;tigiatanti Philo&s;ophi adorare,</HI> then let him call me an unreverent fellow.</P>
<P>Now to your &s;econd bu&s;ine&s;s: Where, 1. I might better have been under&s;tood, if you had not left out the fore-going words; [by Immanent, they mu&s;t needs mean Negatively, not Po&s;itively.] For by this they that &s;ee all might have un|der&s;tood that, 2. It is Gods acts that I &s;peak of, 3. And you do out of your own brain, affix the <HI>Ergo,</HI> as if it were mine, making that an Argument, which I there take as pre&s;uppo&s;ed. The re&s;t we will come to anon.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="11" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 11.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. <HI>THus when the fire warms my hands, the heating is not the effect; but the Heat produced in my hand by the fire. This heat now is con&s;iderable three manner of wayes. I &s;hall not honour my Papers with the name of</HI> Suarez <HI>for this, but referre my Reader, if he be a young Scholar, and not &s;atisfied in it, to his</HI> Smith <HI>and</HI> Brerewood.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="11" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 11.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> YEt again! You will make men believe that I am grown to &s;ome Repu|tation of Learning, when you think it nece&s;&s;ary to u&s;e &s;o many words, to prove me a fre&s;hman. Is not one word of your mouth enough to bla&s;t the repu|tation of &s;uch a puny?</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="12" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 12.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. <HI>EIther, 1. As it encrea&s;eth, and in order to the highe&s;t degree of heat, and &s;o it is called Motion, which is nothing el&s;e but the</HI> Terminus in fieri. <HI>Or 2. As tis received into the &s;ubject, and &s;o it is called Pa&s;&s;ion, heating like beating being as well taken in a Pa&s;&s;ive &s;en&s;e as an active. Or, 3. As it is derived from the Agent, and &s;o it is called action: but this action again is con&s;iderable two manner of wayes; Ei|ther Phy&s;ically or Logically. Phy&s;ically, and &s;o the Patient is the &s;ubject of it: the heat which undergoes the&s;e &s;everal denominations, being in my hand, as was &s;uppo&s;ed. 2. Lo|gically, and &s;o this action is but an extrin&s;ecal denomination, and the Agent is the &s;ubject of it: Now take it how you will, Action is an adjunct, as denominating the agent, no way an effect as an action,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="12" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 12.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. THe word [Effect] is &s;ometime taken for every thing that hath a Being and a Cau&s;e, and &s;o every Action is an Effect, as having a Being dependant on its Cau&s;e: &s;ometime it is taken more re&s;trainedly, for that only which is permanent after the Action, or is Effected by it, and &s;o Action is not an Effect. 2. The u&s;e of your di&s;tribution or di&s;tinctions to our bu&s;ine&s;s &s;eems to me &s;o &s;mall, as that I know not well to what end you bring them forth. 3. The order of your di&s;tingui&s;hing I have no great minde to learn. I &s;hould ra|ther have di&s;tingui&s;hed Logical and Phy&s;ical Action, in the fir&s;t place, had there been any u&s;e for it. 4. But your Logical action we have nothing to &s;ay to: Nor did I &s;peak <HI>de &s;ubjecto praedicationis.</HI> 5. Yet I have no great de&s;ire of imitating
<PB N="44" REF="33"> you, in calling the Agent, the &s;ubject of the extrin&s;ecal denomination [<HI>viz.</HI> A|ction.] It is your Phy&s;ical Action, which is &s;o denominated: Though of the verbal predication [<HI>agit</HI>] I would willingly &s;ay, that the Agent is the &s;ubject. 6. But it is your Phy&s;ical Action which we have now to do with: and that not as it is <HI>in Patiente,</HI> for &s;o it is Pa&s;&s;ion, and not formally Action. Whether <HI>Scotus</HI> opinion of a Real difference be true or not (which yet may have more &s;aid for it then &s;ome &s;uperficial an&s;werers do take notice of) yet formally its like it will be granted, that they are not the &s;ame: And therefore you &s;hould &s;peak of Action as Action, <HI>Ut dicit egre&s;&s;ionem &amp; dependentiam ab agente,</HI> and not as it &s;ignifieth Pa&s;|&s;ion, that is, Reception of Action, and the effect of it: and &s;o the Patient is not the &s;ubject of Action; Nor do I believe it a fit &s;peech to &s;ay, that Calefaction is in your hand, though <HI>Calor</HI> be. But we mu&s;t hear you further; to how great pur|po&s;e we &s;hall &s;ee.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="13" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 13.</HEAD>
<P>M^r K. 1. <HI>NOw take it how you will, Action is an adjunct, as denominating the Agent, no way an Effect, as an Action. 2. Nor doth it carry that &s;tile in any of the&s;e learned</HI> Sophies, <HI>commonly quoted by Mr.</HI> Baxter <HI>with &s;o much reverence.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="13" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 13.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. SAy you &s;o! is it an adjunct as denominating the Agent, take it how I will? What if I take it, [as it is received into the Subject, and called Pa&s;&s;ion] which is your &s;econd &s;en&s;e? Why &s;aid you that your Logical A|ction was an extrin&s;ecal denomination of the Agent, if your Phy&s;ical Action be &s;o too? When you &s;eemed by this to difference them? 2. I marvel that my Re|verence to the&s;e <HI>Sophies</HI> &s;hould be the matter of &s;o many of your lines, and you &s;hould think it nece&s;&s;ary to rehear&s;e it &s;o oft: Sure you are jealous that your Read|er will be very unob&s;ervant of your weighty ob&s;ervations&punc; But, Sir, is not Reve|rence a &s;ign of Lowline&s;s? Why then are you offended at it? You &s;hould rather applaud me, and &s;ay, If <HI>R&punc; B.</HI> do &s;o much Reverence a <HI>Suarez,</HI> a <HI>Schibler,</HI> a <HI>Burger&s;dicius,</HI> if he knew me, how much more would he reverence me! But, to deal more plainly with you, the further I go in peru&s;al of your learned Labours, the more I perceive my Reverence to aba<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e. Let any man except your &s;elf judge by the next pa&s;&s;age, whether you de&s;erve more reverence then the&s;e Rabbies and Sophies (as you have honourably be-Titled them.) You boldly and flatly affirm, That Action [is no way an Effect, as an action, nor doth it carry that &s;tile in any of the&s;e learned Sophies, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>] Either this A&s;&s;ertion is True or Fal&s;e. If True, Mr. <HI>K.</HI> hath got little: but I am fal&s;e, if this be true. If it be fal&s;e, either Mr. <HI>K.</HI> knew it to be &s;o, or he did not. If he did, and yet &s;poke it, and that &s;o confidently, then he mu&s;t pardon me for Reverencing the&s;e childi&s;h Authors before him. If it be fal&s;e and he knew it not, then, 1. He is one that will &s;peak boldly what he knows not, and accordingly to be believed. 2. And then it &s;eems he knows not what he &s;uppo&s;eth his Boyes to know, and he looks at as his <HI>A. B. C.</HI> I will finde out a <HI>Tertium</HI> to &s;alve his credit as &s;oon as I can. If there be no other, I'le lay it on a defect of memory, conjunct with a certain audacity, to tell the world in print, that tho&s;e things are not written which he read when he was a boy, and hath &s;ince forgotten.&punc;</P>
<PB N="45" REF="33">
<P>Let us try the truth of his A&s;&s;ertion. I mu&s;t not <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ell him of &s;ome Schoolmen or any other Philo&s;ophical Writers, that call [action] an effect, for then he will &s;ay, Tho&s;e are not the Sophies in Que&s;tion: It mu&s;t therefore be the very &s;ame men. Let <HI>Schibler</HI> &s;peak fir&s;t <HI>Met. l. 2. c. 10. Tit. 3. Punc. 2. p. 54. Quod ad actionem immanentem attinet; dicitur ea Immanens ab iramanendo, quod &s;cilicet in agente maneat, Exi&s;timo tamen eam non e&s;&s;e intelligendam Po&s;itiv&egrave;, &s;ed Negativ&egrave;. Nam actio Immanens qu&acirc; talis e&s;t, e&s;t in Agente, hoc &s;en&s;u, quia non tran&s;it ad Patiens. In ip&s;o autem agente non e&s;t per modum Adjuncti, &s;ed &s;impliciter ad ip&s;um comparatur ut ad Cau&s;am. Unde haec Propo&s;itio, Homo intelligit, vel di&s;putat, non e&s;t ut adjuncti de &s;ubjecto, &s;ed ut</HI> Ef|fecti <HI>de Cau&s;a: Et patet: Nam Actio tran&s;iens nullum habet &s;ubjectum, ne quidem ip&s;um patiens, ut vi&s;um e&s;t. Ergo etiam actio Immanens &agrave; fortiori non po&s;tulat &s;ubjectum. Con&s;equentia firma e&s;t, quia actio tran&s;iens magis est ex &s;ubjecto, &amp; magis po&s;tulat &s;ub|jectum, quam actio Immanens. Sed actio Tran&s;iens in e&s;&s;e Actionis, nullum habuit &s;ub|jectum,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Ergo &amp; confirmatur, quod Actio ut &s;ic, non dicit ni&s;i egre&s;&s;um &agrave; virt<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">te activa alicujus agentis. Egre&s;sus autem opponitur</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> e&s;&s;e in. <HI>Et hinc relinquitur genera|tim loquendo de actione ut &s;ic, eam non po&s;tulare &s;ubjectum. Ne&abque; enim Genus debet habere Naturam repugnantem &s;uis &s;peciebus,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Yet more, that you may be pa&s;t doubt of Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s Veracity and Ingenuity, <HI>lib. 1. cap. 22. Tit. 28. Art. 1. Caeterum vox effecti ambigua e&s;t,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Prim&ograve; Propri&egrave; &amp; Adaequat&egrave; &s;ignificat cau&s;atum specialiter, nempe cum conn<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tato re&s;pectu ad cau|&s;am efficientem,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Deinde effectum &s;umitur generalius &amp; per Synecdochem &s;p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ci<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">i pro genere, quomodo dicitur aequipollenter ad Cau&s;atum, quomodo jam Cicero loquebatur,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Iam praeterea</HI> 3^o <HI>effectum (&s;icut &amp; Cau&s;atum) aliquando specialiter accipiuntur; prout &s;ignificant e&s;&s;e &s;tans &amp; permanens po&s;t actionem: In quo distinguuntur contra effe|ctionem vel actionem, vel motum: atque ita aliqui aiunt Actionem non e&s;&s;e effectum: &s;ed id quo producitur effectus. Hic tamen communius Effectum &amp; Cau&s;atum &s;umuntur, Diciturque id omne Cau&s;atum quod habet e&s;se per dependentiam ab aliqua Cau&s;a &s;ive &s;it A|ctio, &s;ive Res per Actionem facta. Atque ita etiam</HI> Ramus <HI>in Logic. l. 1. c.</HI> 9. Huc, <HI>in|quit, in doctrina Effecti,</HI> pertinet motus &amp; res motu facta, <HI>&amp;c. Vid. ult. 11. Et Art. 3. De effecto &s;pecialiter dicto. Nihil autem occurrit hic explicandum praeter</HI> &s;pecialia nomina effectorum; <HI>qualia &s;unt <GAP DESC="foreign"> &amp; <GAP DESC="foreign">. Igitur <GAP DESC="foreign"> hoc loco nihil aliud e&s;t quam</HI> ip&s;a Actio, <HI>Dama&s;c. lib. 3. de Orthod. fid. c. 15. eam definit, quod &s;it efficax &amp; &s;ub&s;tantialis naturae motus. De hoc effectus genere, hoc e&s;t, de Actione, intelligendus e&s;t i&s;te Canon,</HI> Ce&s;&s;ante cau&s;a ce&s;&s;at effe|ctus: <HI>Effectus inquam qui e&s;t <GAP DESC="foreign">: Ce&s;&s;ante Patre ce&s;&s;at, (non Filius &s;ed) Gene|ratio Filij: Ce&s;&s;ante Architecto ce&s;&s;at (non domus &s;ed) aedificatio. <GAP DESC="foreign"> autem opus e&s;t po&s;t actionem manens,</HI> &amp;c. <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>quando&abque; generatim &s;ignificat operationem, &s;i|cut &amp; Latina vox Actionis,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Vid. reliq.</HI></P>
<P>So in his <HI>Compend. Philo&s; de Logic. l. 1. &sect;. 1. c. 5. p. 17. Ad effectum tanquam exemplum ejus pertin<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t motus, &amp; res motu facta.</HI></P>
<P>And <HI>Metaph. l. 2. c. 3. Tit.</HI> 17. n. 630. he &s;aith, <HI>Re&s;p. E&s;se ambiguitatem in voce</HI> creati entis: <HI>Creatum enim Ens quandoque dicitur id &s;olum quod per Actionem creativam incipit e&s;se, quodque e&s;t qua&s;i Creationis terminus: Et &s;ic Creatio non est aliquid creatum: Quandoque vero Creatum Ens dicitur omne illud quod&punc; dependenter e&s;t ab Ente increato, &s;ive id &s;it per modum Actionis, &s;ive per modum rei factae per actionem. Et hoc modo Creatio e&s;t quid Creatum.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Callovius</HI> Metaphy&s;. Divin. <HI>&s;aith, p.</HI> 524. In genere cau&s;a|tum e&s;t operatio, &amp; <GAP DESC="foreign">, vel opus &amp; <GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>Simile quid e&s;t in voce Effecti vel Effectus: Dicitur enim quandoque effectum pro eo quod e&s;t qua&s;i Actionis Terminus, quomodo domus,</HI> v. g. <HI>e&s;t effectum. Aliquando
<PB N="46" REF="34"> vero &s;umitur communi&ugrave;s ut dicatur effectum quicquid &agrave; Cau&s;a e&s;t, &s;ive id &s;it per modum Actionis &s;eu motus, &s;ive per modum rei per motum factae; Et &s;ic etiam ip&s;ae Actiones di|cuntur effecta,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Atque ita &s;icut no&s;trae Actiones &s;unt effecta, ip&s;ae tamen non po&s;tulant, ut per alias actiones &s;iant,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>So <HI>lib. 2. cap. 10. Tit. 3. Art.</HI> 3. n. 31, 32. <HI>Nam &amp; ip&s;ae Actiones dicentur effectus prae|ci&s;e, &amp; in &s;e, quia habent e&s;se dependens aliunde,</HI> &amp;c. So n. 41, 42. <HI>&amp;</HI> n. 49, 50, 51. <HI>Et confirmatur per</HI> Ari&s;tot. <HI>l. 3. Phy&s;. T. 20. &V;bi ait, eundem Actum e&s;&s;e Agentis tanquam &agrave; quo, &amp; patientis tanquam in quo, hoc e&s;t, ibi habet re&s;pectum effecti; hic vero habet respectum adjuncti.</HI></P>
<P>Again, <HI>l. 2 c. 3. Tit.</HI> 14. n. 418. <HI>Potentia ad &s;uum Actum comparatur ut effectum illius, &V;nde Intellectio,</HI> v. g. <HI>e&s;set effectus potentiae intellectivae,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Now let Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s auditors con&s;ider the next time he a&s;cendeth his Chair, how farre their great Ma&s;ter is to be credited, and with what Cautions his mo&s;t confi|dent A&s;&s;ertions mu&s;t be received. Let a man &s;peak never &s;o many Doctrinal un|truths, we may mode&s;tly and hand&s;omly confute them without offen&s;ive language: but when men &s;peak &s;uch palpable untruths in matter of fact, I love not to di&s;pute with them, &s;eeing a man hath no an&s;wer for them, be&s;eeming their errour, but a plain <HI>de&s;ideratur veritas,</HI> which &s;eems &s;o unhand&s;ome language that it is u&s;ually ill taken what ever be the cau&s;e.</P>
<P>But let us hear another of the Sophies, <HI>viz.</HI> Suarez. <HI>Metaph. disp. 18. Sect.</HI> 10. n. 8. <HI>Quod &s;i nomine Effectus comprehendamus non &s;olum rem productam, &s;ed quicquid &agrave; virtute agentis manat, &s;ic concedimus actionem e&s;se aliquo modo effectum agentis, cum &s;it dependens vel potius ip&s;amet dependentia ab illo: E&s;&s;e autem Effectum hoc lato modo, non repugnat cau&s;alitati: quin potius in omnibus cau&s;is quas hactenus tractavimus, Cau&s;alitas e&s;t effectus cau&s;ae,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>It were no hard matter to produce more Reverend Sophies for Mr. <HI>K.</HI> who u&s;e the &s;ame language and call Actions Effects; but being about &s;o &s;mall a matter, I think it is not worth the labour. In this<NOTE PLACE="marg">Vid. <HI>Alting.</HI> Pro|blem. Theolog. part. 1. p. 55.</NOTE> much the Reader may perceive to what a lo&s;s of time he may be lead in reading &s;uch Controver&s;ies, where men leave the Things, and fall upon Per&s;ons and Words, out of an earne&s;t de&s;ire to finde out &s;ome way to ca&s;t Contempt upon their Brethren.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="14" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 14.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. <HI>VVHat was wont to be more common in hor&s;e-fair then</HI> An Actio &s;it in Agente, <HI>which with the knack of this hackney di&s;tinction, every dull J<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">de could turn at their plea&s;ure, and hold &s;ometimes affirmatively, &s;ometimes negatively. So then thus farre little is &s;aid to the prejudice of that truth, that there is no new Immanent act in God?</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="14" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 14.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R&punc; B.</HI> YOur hor&s;e-fair, and hackney di&s;tinction, and dull Jade, are pa&s;&s;ages &s;o profound that I mu&s;t pa&s;s them as unan&s;werable by any that hath not at|tained to your Degrees.&punc; But doubtle&s;s you knew al&s;o how common it is to main|tain the Negative on other grounds, and to &s;ay, that <HI>Actio e&s;t Agentis, non in A|gente:</HI> and this is the language that I have hitherto thought fitte&s;t: and your con|trary judgement alone will &s;carce move me to change. As for the &s;afety of your
<PB N="47" REF="34"> Conclu&s;ion, I mu&s;t tell you, it is no &s;uch glorious Atchievement for you to vindi|cate it again&s;t one that never oppo&s;ed or denied it.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="15" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 15.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. K. <HI>BUt 2. Though this &s;hould be granted to Mr.</HI> Baxter <HI>to be true in acts tran&s;i|ent, yet an immanent act is que&s;tionle&s;s an Adjunct, and not onely denomi|nate the Agent, but inhere in it. For I ask, Is Knowing or Willing a Sub&s;tance or Accident? an Accident que&s;tionle&s;&s;e. If an Accident; In what Subject? Out of the Agent, you will finde no place where it may &s;et the &s;ole of its foot. Therefore it is in the Agent, and &s;o an Adjunct: and if &s;o, &s;ure Immanent acts in God mu&s;t needs infer <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n alteration. For</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="15" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 15.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> I Confe&s;s your fir&s;t on-&s;et (&s;o &s;udden, &s;o cau&s;le&s;s again&s;t a feigned Ad|ver&s;ary) made me &s;u&s;pect you to be &s;ome <HI>pugnaci&s;&s;imum animal</HI> (as Dr. <HI>Twi&s;s</HI> cals his Adver&s;ary) but your pro&s;ecution puts me out of doubt. 1. Had you confined the&s;e &s;peeches of yours only to the Creatures Acts, you had &s;aid but as many others have done before you: But it is Gods acts that you &s;peak of, as you a&s;certain us in your application [and if &s;o, &s;ure Immanent acts in God mu&s;t needs inferre an alteration.] But indeed do you believe that God is compounded of Sub&s;tance and Accident? Yea doth the contentious di&s;po&s;ition &s;o potently carry you on, that you dare &s;peak in &s;uch confident language, as to &s;ay that it is [an accident que&s;tionle&s;s] which you attribute to God? What could <HI>Vor&s;tius</HI> have &s;aid more? I thought you had concurred in opinion with your Brethren, that u&s;e to call Gods Immanent acts, as diver&s;ified and as di&s;tinct from his E&s;|&s;ence, only Extrin&s;ick Denominations: But it &s;eems you think otherwi&s;e (for a little time, while your ha&s;t doth hurry you that way <HI>per modum naturae.</HI>) 2. If you &s;ay, That you meant onely this much [Immanent acts are Accidents inherent in man: Therefore they inferre an alteration in God] You might &s;o ea&s;ily fore|know that I would deny your Con&s;equence, that me thinks &s;o great a Di&s;putant &s;hould not &s;o drily have pa&s;&s;ed over the proof. I do not &s;tick on the &s;trangene&s;s of the Conclu&s;ion it &s;elf, that [Immanent acts in God mu&s;t needs inferre an alte|ration;] which is again&s;t your &s;elf and all Divines, who maintain that there are Immanent acts in God. For I doubt not but your ha&s;te which the di&s;puting itch provoked you to, cau&s;ed you to put [Immanent acts] for new Immanent acts.] 3. But its &s;trange, that you could bethink you of no an&s;wer that might be made to your Que&s;tion [If an Accident, in what Subject?] when you know it is &s;o common to deny that Inhe&s;ion is nece&s;&s;ary to every Accident; And when you know that in this ca&s;e an <HI>e&s;&s;e ab,</HI> or a dependant <HI>Egre&s;&s;e,</HI> is affirm|ed &s;ufficient by &s;o many. I cited the words of <HI>Schibler</HI> to that &s;en&s;e even now, where he purpo&s;ely oppo&s;eth that which you a&s;&s;erted, <HI>lib. 2. cap. 10. Tit.</HI> 3. n. 54, 55. I will not trouble you to rehear&s;e them, it being a Book &s;o farre be|low you. Now to your Proof.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="16" TYPE="section">
<PB N="48" REF="35">
<HEAD>&sect;. 16.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. <HI>FOr, 3. Though Action as Action logically con&s;idered, be but an <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">xtrin&s;ecal Denomination, and &s;o only denominate the Agent, not inhere in it, as much of Reality as there is in all Tran&s;ient Actions being in the Patient, even Phy&s;ically, or ra|ther Metaphy&s;ically con&s;idered; yet the&s;e Immanent astions have their Terms too, &s;ay the &s;aid Sages, and tho&s;e in the Agent; he that hath a minde to look it, may &s;oon finde it in</HI> Suarez, <HI>or his</HI> Scapula Schibler, <HI>in the predicament of Action. Thus then the fir&s;t bol<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> hath done little execution again&s;t this truth&punc; that there can be no new Immanent Acts in God.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="16" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 16.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> IS this all the proof that we have waited for [Immanent actions have their terms too?] 1. Either you mean it of all Immanent acts, or but of &s;ome, if but of &s;ome, then it is a learned Argument: [&s;ome Immanent acts have their terms: Therefore there can be no new Immanent acts in God.] But I &s;uppo&s;e you mean it of All: But then by [terms] do you mean [objects] which &s;ometime are cal|led <HI>termini?</HI> Or do you mean, the form to which the action tendeth, and which by it is produced or induced? If the fir&s;t, then the <HI>Terminus</HI> of the&s;e Divine acts which we are &s;peaking of, is oft <HI>Without,</HI> (as we u&s;e to &s;ay;) as when God know|eth, Approveth, Willeth, Loveth the Creature. And therefore &s;ome few will not call the&s;e Immanent acts, but onely tho&s;e who&s;e object is God him&s;elf. But I &s;uppo&s;e you mean the later, and then, 3. You might ea&s;ily fore&s;ee, that though I had yielded all that you &s;ay of the Creatures acts, yet I would deny it of Gods: And blame me not for it, if I be le&s;&s;e bold then you: and if I dare not imagine that there is in God either <HI>Motus</HI> or <HI>Terminus ad quem,</HI> or effect, or form acquired, when he Knows, Willeth, Approveth or Loveth the Creature. I am in hope that you believe no &s;uch thing your &s;elf, when the di&s;puting itch is a little allayed. But however, could you po&s;&s;ibly think it &s;o obvious and ea&s;ie a point as to need no proof? Why have we never a word here to that end, who need &s;o many? I love not the&s;e Happy Di&s;puters that can prove that by &s;ilence, which neither them|&s;elves nor any other can prove by Argument. If you will flie to your Analogy, and &s;ay [There are <HI>Termini actionum Immanentium</HI> in man: Therefore there are &s;o in God] I &s;hould tell you that you may as wi&s;ely &s;ay [There are Accidents, Effects and Mutations in man: Therefore there are &s;uch in God.] At lea&s;t I &s;hould importune you for the proof of your con&s;equence. 4. But for the Terms of Immanent Actions you &s;ay [The &s;aid Sages &s;ay it] and [he that hath a minde to look it, may &s;oon finde it in <HI>Suarez,</HI> and his <HI>Scapula Schibler</HI>] Truly, Sir, I have hitherto hinted your faults in Ironies: but I think it fit to ask you now (&s;ee|ing it is not once or twice, nor a &s;lip of your pen) how you dare put &s;uch things in print, and &s;et &s;o light by hone&s;t Truth-telling, and leave &s;uch things on re|cord again&s;t your &s;elf? You that do <HI>tanto fa&s;tu</HI> referre us to <HI>Schibler</HI> as our <HI>Scapula,</HI> &s;ure know his Doctrine: or at lea&s;t, if you know it not, you &s;hould not take on you to know it, and &s;ay, we may &s;oon finde that in him, which he &s;o largely and purpo&s;ely di&s;putes again&s;t. He &s;aith indeed, that &s;ome Immanent acts have terms, as Syllogizing: but that cannot be your meaning: for you well know it will do nothing to inferre your Conclu&s;ion: But doth not <HI>Schibler (l. 2. c. 10. Tit. 3. art.</HI> 3.
<PB N="49" REF="35"> <HI>punct.</HI> 1, 2.) largely di&s;pute it, that many Immanent acts have no terms, no not Vi&s;ion or Intellection! and an&s;wer the Objections again&s;t him? and conclude that <HI>Acti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> ut &s;ic non dicit re&s;pectum ad terminum?</HI> And if Intellection have no Term, then Decree, and the re&s;t that we were mentioning in the beginning, can have none <HI>in agente.</HI> 5. Nay what a great part of the great Philo&s;ophers and School-Divines do deny, that Immanent acts are true acts? <HI>Scotus</HI> takes them to be qua|lities, and not in the predicament of Action. <HI>Soncinus, Ferrarien&s;is</HI> (and &s;aith <HI>Schibler Thomi&s;tae frequenter ita docent</HI>) deny them to be true acts. And if &s;o, then &s;ure they have not the <HI>terminos</HI> of true acts.</P>
<P>And I before told you at the beginning of your Di&s;cour&s;e, that we do not all agree with you in your De&s;cription of an Immanent act, if you mean that it is &s;uch as is not only negatively, but Po&s;itively terminated in the Agent, as your words import: You may &s;ee <HI>Schibler</HI> denying it (when you &s;hall conde&s;cend to look it in him) <HI>in Met. l. 2. c. 10. Tit.</HI> 3. n. 54. <HI>&amp; Tit. 5. art.</HI> 1. n. 64. But let this be how it will in man, I do very confidently deny that there is any &s;uch act in God, either of Knowledge or Will, as is either in the predicament of Action, or hath any <HI>Terminus</HI> in him&s;elf, further then as him&s;elf is the object of any act. And therefore you &s;hould fir&s;t prove, that &s;uch Acts are in God at all, before you di&s;pute whether they may be in him <HI>de novo.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="17" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 17.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. <HI>COn&s;ider we what follows: [Whether all &s;uch Immanent acts are any more eternal then tran&s;ient acts, is much que&s;tioned] &s;aith Mr.</HI> Baxter. <HI>By whom I pray? A clear difference between them as between heaven and earth&punc; tran&s;ient acts as I told you but now, being in the Patient, Immanent in the Agent.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="17" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 17.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. O Happy, too happy wit! that hath not onely with <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> &s;een the back parts of God, but hath taken &s;o full a Survey of his Na|ture, that it can di&s;cern as clear a difference between his &s;everal acts, as between heaven and earth! I dare not attempt the like &s;urvey: but I may receive in&s;tru|&s;truction from you that have &s;urvey'd it. And what is the difference? Why [tran&s;ient acts are in the Patient, and Immanent in the Agent&punc;] What's the proof? Why it is this [I told you &s;o but even now.] This may be a Demon&s;tra|tion to tho&s;e that are capable of it: but <HI>recipitur ad modum recipientis:</HI> with me you have lo&s;t your Authority, &s;o farre, that I need another kinde of proof. I will rather call it Pa&s;&s;ion then Action when it is <HI>in Patiente. Forma dat nomen:</HI> and Pa&s;&s;ion and Action are not the &s;ame <HI>formaliter,</HI> what&s;oever they may be materially. U&s;e the names promi&s;cuou&s;ly, if there be no difference in the things.</P>
<P>You know the &s;ubtil <HI>Scoti&s;ts</HI> &s;ay, That Action and Pa&s;&s;ion are not the &s;ame, and that Action is in the Agent. And I have yet &s;een no rea&s;on to preferre you before <HI>Scotus.</HI> But I rather &s;ay, that Tran&s;ient Acts are <HI>ab agente,</HI> but neither <HI>in agente nec patiente;</HI> as having a Cau&s;e but no Subject, as I have before expre&s;&s;ed. And you may finde in my <HI>Scapula, Met. l. 2 c. 10. Tit.</HI> 3. n. 51. That <HI>Omne accidens e&s;t in alio &s;en&s;u Negativo,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>altas loquendo de generali e&s;&s;entia accidentis, non e&s;t ea in Inhaerendo, &s;i rigoro&s;e loquamur, &s;ed in eo quod id q<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">od accidens e&s;t afficit &s;ub&s;tantiam extra e&s;&s;entialiter, &s;ive extra e&s;&s;entiam, aut rationem ejus exi&s;tendo. Proinde et&s;i actio
<PB N="50" REF="36"> rigoro&s;e loquendo non inhaereat, tam<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n &s;atis habet de ratione accidentis, quia &s;ub&s;tantiam af|ficit &amp; denominat extra e&s;&s;entialiter. &V;nde porr&ograve; re&s;p. ad a&s;sump. pro&s;yllog. admitten|do quod Actio Tran&s;iens non fit in Patiente, loquendo de actione ut fic, &amp; &s;ub e&s;se Actionis. Quod igitur Actio tran&s;iens dicitur e&s;&s;e in patiente, id non e&s;t Intel|ligendum formaliter, &s;ed materialiter: nempe illa res quae e&s;t Actio est in Patiente&punc; non tamen &s;ub formali Actionis, &s;ed &s;ub formali pa&s;&s;ionis: Eadem enim res quae Actio e&s;t, e&s;t etiam Pa&s;&s;io.</HI> Now I hope you are more accurate in your &s;peeches then to u&s;e to denominate from the matter, rather then the form: and therefore I hope here|after you will forbear &s;aying, that <HI>Actio e&s;t in Patiente,</HI> how common &s;oever it may be. At lea&s;t remember that you humbled your &s;elf but even now, to u&s;e a Hack|ney di&s;tinction, with which every dull Jade could maintain the Negative at their plea&s;ure. And what if I adventured to u&s;e one Argument, <HI>Actio e&s;t efficientis cau|&s;alitas: At efficientis Cau&s;alitas non e&s;t in Patiente: Erg&ograve;, Actio non e&s;t in Patiente.</HI> The <HI>major</HI> I prove by Infallible Authority, <HI>viz.</HI> Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s, pag. 136. For the <HI>minor,</HI> If the Cau&s;ality of the Agent were in the Patient, then we might fitly call it <HI>Pa|tientis Cau&s;alitas.</HI> (For the name &s;hould be <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">itted to the thing) But that were ab&s;urd, Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Further, That which is in the Patient is a <HI>Cau&s;atum,</HI> or effect of the Agent <HI>per Actionem vel Cau&s;alitatem.</HI> But Cau&s;ality or Action is not a <HI>Cau&s;atum</HI> or effect of the Agent <HI>per actionem vel cau&s;alitatem:</HI> Therefore that which is in the Patient is not Action or Cau&s;ality. The <HI>major</HI> needs no proof; and its meant of every received form. The <HI>minor</HI> hath a full demon&s;tration, <HI>viz.</HI> Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s Authority; who denieth Action to be an effect. And tho&s;e that be not moved with his authority, may ob&s;erve that I here take the word [effect] in the more re&s;trained &s;en&s;e as it excludeth Cau&s;ality or Action; and therefore that I &s;ay [it is not an Effect <HI>per Actionem</HI>] and that is proved fully, in that otherwi&s;e, there mu&s;t be another Action to effect this Action, and &s;o <HI>in infinitum.</HI> But I did not think to have &s;aid any thing on this. All that Mr. <HI>K.</HI> can expect we &s;hould grant him is, that <HI>Actio qua Pa&s;&s;io e&s;t in Patiente:</HI> but &s;till <HI>Actio tran&s;iens qua Actio non e&s;t in Patiente,</HI> no more then is an Immanent action. Or if it were, yet the Au|thority of &s;o many learned gain-&s;ayers, makes the difference &s;eem &s;carce &s;o clear as that between heaven and earth.</P>
<P>Moreover, that which in God we call a Tran&s;ient Act, is by the Schoolmen in greate&s;t credit, affirmed to be Gods E&s;&s;ence only connoting the creature-<HI>Relatio</HI> to it: &s;o that be&s;ides the creature it &s;elf (which though <HI>Scotus</HI> cals Creation, yet is &s;ure the effect and not the act) and be&s;ides the Relation (which can be no proper act) there remains nothing but Gods e&s;&s;ence, to be the &s;ub&s;tance of the Act which we call both Immanent and Tran&s;ient. <HI>Capreolus</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Nulla Divina operatio aut actio qua formaliter agit aut operatur, e&s;t tran&s;iens in pa&s;sum, &s;ic quod in pa&s;&s;o formaliter recipiatur, cum ejus agere &s;it ejus Velle <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Intelligere, quae &s;unt actiones Immanentes. Sed concedi pote&s;t quod divina actio dicitur quandoque tran&s;iens propter respectum rationis ad realem effectum in Creatura, ut Creatio, Con&s;ervatio,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>l. 2. di&s;t. 1. q. 2. art.</HI> 3. And the Thomi&s;t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> (&s;aith <HI>Suarez, Met. di&s;p.</HI> 20. &sect;. 5.) &s;ay, That <HI>Non &s;olum Creatio, verum neque ulla actio re&s;pectu illius pote&s;t e&s;&s;e Tran&s;iens.</HI> Where then is Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s clear difference as between heaven and earth?</P>
<P>And though I am loth to put my &s;inger into the fire, by medling with Mr. <HI>K.</HI> any further then he invites me, yet perhaps he may expect I &s;hould &s;omewhat take notice what he &s;aith of this point to Mr. <HI>Goodwin,</HI> pag. 150, 154.</P>
<P N="1">1. When he &s;aith, [There are &s;o many Immutations in Gods E&s;&s;ence] if tran&s;ient operations be the &s;ame with his E&s;&s;ence, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> I deny the con&s;equence:
<PB N="51" REF="36"> becau&s;e the <HI>Terminus</HI> or effect is not the &s;ame with his E&s;&s;ence, though the act be. The Effect only is Many; the Act but one. 2. To his &s;olution of the fir&s;t Que|&s;tion, where he &s;aith, It is a my&s;tery pa&s;&s;ing all under&s;tanding, that God &s;hould incline the heart to believe and not act anew, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>] I &s;ay, I believe him for the my&s;teriou&s;ne&s;s. But as all multiplicity comes from Unity, &s;o do all temporals from that act which is Eternal. To all Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s In&s;tances the Schoolmen &s;ay, It is the effect only that is New: In giving the &s;pirit, faith, rai&s;ing Chri&s;t; <HI>&amp;c.</HI> God had no new act: Yet God did it by <HI>Velle,</HI> which is his eternal act and e&s;&s;ence. To his an&s;wer to the &s;econd Que&s;tion, I Reply, M. <HI>K</HI>'s Que&s;tions are in&s;ipid and fallacious. [Did he Plant faith by making Plants? Did he make me to differ by making the world?] For though it was by the &s;ame act, yet that act hath divers denominations from its re&s;pect to divers objects. To [make the world] conno|teth a particular object, <HI>viz.</HI> the world: and therefore the act which cau&s;eth you to believe, cannot be called [Creating the world] not becau&s;e the act is not the &s;ame, but becau&s;e it re&s;pecteth not the &s;ame object. The third Que&s;tion belongs not to me. To the fourth I &s;ay as before: the act is Gods <HI>Velle:</HI> his <HI>Velle</HI> is his E&s;&s;ence: Therefore Eternal. His Que&s;tions [Whether the world were drowned by the &s;ame Act by which it was made? <HI>&amp;c.</HI>] are an&s;wered as before: It was by the &s;ame Act, <HI>viz. Velle Divinum;</HI> but to be denominated variou&s;ly according to the Variety of objects which it doth re&s;pect and connote. Even as it is the &s;ame Act which is Immanent and Eternal, which in Time is denominated Tran&s;ient from its re&s;pect to the effect.</P>
<P>But <HI>Pag.</HI> 154. I finde him citing Mr. <HI>G.</HI> as &s;aying [Learned men Generally acknowledge, that (the act) is really and formally one and the &s;ame thing with his E&s;&s;ence&punc;] And Mr. <HI>K.</HI> &s;aith contrary, that [No man ever a&s;&s;erted Tran&s;ient acts to be the &s;ame with the Agent] and that [all Tran&s;ient acts be the &s;ame with the term, &s;ay all men that meddle with Metaphy&s;icks] and he appeals to any Reader that hath but ta&s;ted the fir&s;t principles of Logick. Truly the&s;e two Di|vines are very contrary: and have bewrayed both of them that which they might have concealed with much more credit to their Reading. Yet Mr. <HI>G.</HI> may inter|pret [Generally] with &s;uch limitations as may bring him off in part: but Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s pre&s;umption and boldne&s;s is intolerable. When a man of &s;o &s;mall R<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ading as I am, know &s;o well, that the Metaphy&s;ical Doctors do &s;ome &s;peak one way, and &s;ome another: as I undertake by quotations now to manife&s;t when I &s;hall under|&s;tand it worth any time and labour. I remember Mr <HI>K</HI>'s words in his third Epi|&s;tle of the &s;ufficiency of [a pair of Sheers and a met yard.] But it is not &s;o farre &s;ufficient without more Reading, as to encourage a tender con&s;cienc't man, to averre untruths &s;o confidently, that [<HI>No man ever a&s;serted,</HI> &amp;c.] And where he &s;aith [The Que&s;tion is not of the acts of his <HI>Will,</HI> but of his <HI>Power,</HI> &amp;c.] Know|eth he not that Dr. <HI>Twi&s;s</HI> and the highly honoured Thomi&s;ts do make God to work <HI>per e&s;&s;entiam,</HI> and &s;ay, that his Power is but his Will, called Power in re&s;pect to the effect which it doth produce? <HI>Vid.</HI> Aquin. 1. <HI>q. 15. art.</HI> 1. 4^m. Truly me thinks that Mr. <HI>K.</HI> doth even to the meanly learned expo&s;e him&s;elf to great di&s;grace, to &s;ay &s;o boldly, that [all men that meddle with Metaphy&s;icks &s;ay, that all Tran&s;i|ent acts be the &s;ame with the term.] Did he never at lea&s;t reade <HI>Scotus</HI> &s;o oft a&s;|&s;erting and arguing for the contrary? Nor any one of his followers, nor one of all the other parties that deny this? If he had not, yet he &s;hould have blu&s;hed &s;o peremptorily to affirm what he did not know&punc; At lea&s;t he &s;hould have known that <HI>Schibler</HI> hath this Conclu&s;ion, which he largely argues for [3^o <HI>Actiones quae
<PB N="52" REF="37"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">endunt ad terminum non &s;unt realiter idem cum termino</HI>] and &s;aith, <HI>Cal<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">factionem a Calore specie di&s;tingui.</HI> And he there tels you of <HI>Venetus, Aur<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">olus, Suarez &amp; Col|leg. Conimbric.</HI> that &s;ay as he: At lea&s;t he that &s;o derides me for citing the&s;e puerile Authors, &s;hould not have dared to &s;ay All men [that meddle with Metaphy&s;.] &s;ay as he in this, when both common School-books, and the two mo&s;t famous Sects of Schoolmen, Scoti&s;ts and Thomi&s;ts are again&s;t him (as <HI>Suarez</HI> will tell him, <HI>disp. 48. &s;er.</HI> 5. n. 2. of <HI>Cajet. Hi&s;palen&s;. Flandr. &amp; communiter Scoti&s;t</HI> &amp;c.] And for the fuller an&s;wering of Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s Que&s;tions before mentioned, I de&s;ire the learn|ed Reader among others to peru&s;e the fore&s;aid An&s;wer of <HI>Capr<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">olus</HI> to <HI>Aureolus</HI> 15. arguments <HI>in l. 2. &s;ent. di&s;t. 1. q. 2. a.</HI> 3. But I mu&s;t intreat you &s;till to remember that my own opinion is, That action is not properly a&s;crib<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d to God at all; nay farre more Improperly then men will ea&s;ily believe: <HI>Suarez</HI> him&s;elf <HI>Metaph. disp.</HI> 48. &sect;. 5. n. 11. maintaineth Gods Immanent acts, <HI>Intelligere &amp; Velle</HI> are properly not acts, no<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> to be &s;o called. But of this before.</P>
<P>Reade al&s;o <HI>Gibieuf. de Libert&punc; l. 1. cap.</HI> 25. &sect;. 13. &s;hewing that the act whereby God made all things of nothing is Eternal: and <HI>c. 6. p.</HI> 323. And Cardin. <HI>Con|tarenus de praede&s;tinatione, pag. (operum</HI>) 606. &s;aith, <HI>Simplici &amp; &V;nica Actione, quae cum ip&s;ius &s;ub&s;tantia eadem e&s;t (&s;i tam<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n &s;ub&s;tantiam appellare licet) omnes effectus producit: ita nullo etiam tempore aut temporis aliqua parte, actionem ejus contineri,</HI> &amp;c.] <HI>Vid.</HI> Aquin. <HI>contr. Gent. l 1, 2. c.</HI> 35, 36, 37. 17, 18, 19.</P>
<P>And that the Action is not the &s;ame with the <HI>Terminus,</HI> &s;ee the Arguments of <HI>Ludovic. a Dola de Concur&s;u Part. 1. cap. 2. &sect;. 6. Aquin.</HI> is cited by <HI>Capreolus in 2. &s;ent. di&s;. 1. q. 2. a.</HI> 3. as &s;aying thus, <HI>de po<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. Dei q. 3. a. 17. ad</HI> 12^m. <HI>Dei Actio est aet<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rna cum &s;it ejus &s;ub&s;tantia: dicitur autem incipere agere ratione novi effectus, qui ab aeterna actione con&s;equitur di&s;po&s;itionem voluntatis qui intelligitur qua&s;i actionis principium in or|dine ad effectum.</HI>]</P>
<P N="2">2. But the other part of the a&s;&s;igned difference goes down with me no better, but much wor&s;e, 1. In that he knows, I think, that it is not &s;uch a commonly received opinion [that Immanent actions are in the Agent] in a Po&s;itive &s;en&s;e, and not meerly negative, as that he &s;hould think it needed no more proof then his mentioning. I gave him the oppo&s;ition of one Sophie, as he cals him, even now. 2. And if it were &s;o in man, I again tell him, that I will not take his bare word, no nor his oath, that it is &s;o in God.</P>
<P>But Mr. <HI>K.</HI> mu&s;t needs know who they be that make que&s;tion of this. What if it were but &s;ome private familiars of mine? Mu&s;t Mr. <HI>K.</HI> needs know their names? But I had thought he had been well acquainted with the doctrine of <HI>Ly<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">hetus, Penn<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tus</HI> and <HI>Sanct&acirc; Clar&acirc;</HI> in this Point, Who affirm, That though the act in it &s;elf be God him&s;elf, and &s;o eternal, yet the tran&s;ition of it to &s;everal objects, and &s;o the denomination may be new; and &s;o that God may to day prede&s;tinate him that before was not prede&s;tinated, or Love him that before was not Loved, and this without any change in God. Indeed the&s;e are the men that I mean. I thought with the&s;e men of the higher form you had deigned to be familiar: but becau&s;e you &s;peak of the matter &s;o &s;trangely, I will come down again to our own form, and rehear&s;e a few words of <HI>Burger&s;dicius</HI> familiarly known to tho&s;e at your foot|&s;tool. <HI>Metaph. l. 2. &sect;. 16. E&s;t enim in Deo concipiendus unus actus, qui nihil aliud e&s;t quam e&s;sentia divina. Hic actus re&s;picere pote&s;t diver&s;a objecta creata, &s;eu, quod eodem redit, Deus per i&s;tum actum tendere pote&s;t in diver&s;a objecta, vel etiam non tendere: &amp; cum in illa tendit, rever&acirc; ea vult: Dixi in objecta creata: Nam &s;emetip&s;um Deus non pote&s;t non amare. Decreta ergo Dei duo involvunt; actum &s;cilicet, &amp; illius actus tendentiam
<PB N="53" REF="37"> &s;ine applicatione ad diver&s;a objecta creata. Actus ip&s;e liber non e&s;t, non ma|gis quam Dei vel Immen&s;itas, vel Aeternitas: &s;ed libera e&s;t illius actus applicatio ad objecta: quae tamen quia nihil Deo addit entis, &s;ed &s;olum denominationem quandam ex|ternam, &s;umptam a connotatione objecti creati, tanquam termini &s;ui, neque compo&s;itionem efficere pote&s;t, neque mutationem. Quod adeo verum e&s;t, ut exi&s;timem, &s;i Deus decr<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ta re&s;cindere po&s;&s;et, illud imperfectionem allaturam Deo, non propter mutationem Decreto|rum, &s;ed propter cau&s;am mutationis, quae aut imprudentia &s;emper e&s;t aut impotentia.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Suarez</HI> hath &s;uch a like pa&s;&s;age, which <HI>Fr. a Sancta Clara</HI> reciting, an&s;wers this Objection about Imprudence or Impotency, as <HI>Po&s;nani<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n&s;is</HI> before him: <HI>Froblem. quart. pag. 31. &s;ed hac ratio ejus e&s;t debilis, ut recte notavit</HI> Po&s;nanien&s;is: <HI>Nam im|prudentiae vel incon&s;tantiae vitium non e&s;t, &s;iquis propo&s;itis duolus benis, primo <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ligat mi|nus bonum &amp; po&s;tea majus: ni&s;i forte ex pa&s;&s;ione vel timore difficultatis, vel alia inordina|ta affectione id proveniat; ut patet de bono caelibatus &amp; conjugii. Deus autem nullo mo|do obligatur, nec pa&s;&s;ionibus laborat, &s;ed ex mera liberalitate hoc non illud eligit: Ergo pote&s;t eligere &s;ine nota incon&s;tantiae. Haec ille. &V;nde</HI> Augu&s;t. <HI>Si non es praede&s;tinatus, fac ut praede&s;tineris. Et</HI> Ambro&s;ius (<HI>in c.</HI> 1. Luc.) <HI>Novit Dominus mutare &s;ententiam, &s;i tu noveris <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">mendare delictum. Subtili&s;&s;imus etiam</HI> Bradwardinus <HI>dicit hanc &s;ententiam &s;uum aliquando pul&s;a&s;&s;e animum,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Thus I have given you &s;ome an&s;wer to your incredulous Que&s;tion [By whom I pray?] But another kinde of an&s;wer might be given, concerning another &s;ort of men, who deny the Act it &s;elf to be Gods E&s;&s;ence, but &s;omewhat that hath no more Being then a Relation, or a Formality, or <HI>Ens rationis ratiocinatae,</HI> or at lea&s;t then a <HI>modus Entis:</HI> and con&s;equently that as this may be without any compo&s;ition in God (which they prove by the confe&s;&s;ion of our own Doctors) &s;o may it begin and end without Mutation in God. But I'le not offend Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s ears with the names of the&s;e men.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="18" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 18.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. <HI>SUrely tran&s;ient Acts there could be none before the Creation, there being no term of &s;uch Acts, no &s;ubject for them, unle&s;s there were either &s;omewhat that was not made, or &s;omewhat made before there was a Creation: but as for Immanent Acts, as Knowing and Willing in God, they were before the foundation of the world was laid. It is a very crude pa&s;&s;age thus to &s;ay [It is much que&s;tioned whether &punc;all &s;uch Im|manent Acts are any more eternal then tran&s;ient Acts:] For if the meaning be that any tran&s;ient Act be eternal, that is a my&s;tery beyond all that hath been heard: then &s;omewhat was made from eternity: If the meaning be, that no Immanent Act is <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ternal, that's af|ter the &s;ame rate. The fir&s;t made the Creature eternal&punc; the &s;econd denies God to be eternal: Did he not kn<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">w from Eternity, yea fore-know all that hath been &s;ince the Crea|tion, is or &s;hall be to the di&s;&s;olution of the world, he were not perfect, and therefore not God from eternity. So then neither can it be affirmed, that there was any tran&s;ient act eternal, nor can <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> denied but that &s;ome Immanent acts are eternal: and if &s;ome, then all, or els a change in <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity be granted. So that if the meaning be [Its que&s;tio|ned Whether &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">me <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">mmanent Acts be no more eternal then tran&s;ient Acts] that is, &s;ome immanent Acts be not eternal, the Argument returns with the old charge, that an altera|tion mu&s;t be yielded in God, immanent Acts being not to be reckoned with any colour among effects, but adjuncts, and no ground of&punc; putting any &s;uch new immanent Act in God in time, which I demon&s;trate further thus.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="18" TYPE="section">
<PB N="54" REF="38">
<HEAD>&sect;. 18.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> THe meaning of my words is not hid, but according to the proper literal &s;en&s;e, and I had &s;ome re&s;pect to the two &s;orts of men before-mention|ed, but chiefly to one. And what I &s;ay in Reply to your words, you mu&s;t be &s;o ju&s;t as to take to be according to their grounds, and not mine own: For it is but the un&s;earchablene&s;s of the&s;e things that I am all this while main|taining.</P>
<P>And fir&s;t to your Argumentation again&s;t the Eternity of tran&s;ient acts, it may be replied, that in tran&s;ient acts you mu&s;t di&s;tingui&s;h between the Act it &s;elf, which is called tran&s;ient, and the Pa&s;&s;ion or Reception of that act in the &s;ubject or the product, or effect of that act. The denomination of <HI>Tran&s;ient</HI> is given to that act in the later re&s;pect as it doth connote the Product, Effect, Pa&s;&s;ion and Subject: yea is properly taken &s;o from them, as that it &s;ignifieth nothing e&s;&s;ential to the Act it &s;elf as an Act: So that all that &s;ame Act which is in Time denomi|nated Tran&s;ient, becau&s;e in time it did produce its effect, was really from eter|nity it &s;elf, though the effect were not; and &s;o differs not <HI>quoad rationem formalem actus,</HI> from an Immanent act. Proved, 1. The Act by which God created the world, was his &s;imple <HI>Velle:</HI> But Gods &s;imple <HI>Velle</HI> was from Eternity: Therefore <HI>&amp;c.</HI> The <HI>major</HI> is indeed denied by &s;uch P<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nies as <HI>Schibler,</HI> and many more of his minde: but it needs no proof with Mr. <HI>K.</HI> for it is the opinion (I am &s;ure the &s;aying) of D^<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> <HI>Twi&s;s:</HI> And indeed it comes all to one, as to our bu&s;ine&s;s, if you go on the others grounds. The <HI>major,</HI> Mr. <HI>K.</HI> maintains. 2. <HI>Deu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> operatur per e&s;sentiam immediat&egrave;: &s;ed e&s;sentia divina e&s;t aeterna: Ergo,</HI> &amp;c. The <HI>major</HI> is &s;po|ken exclu&s;ively as to all acts which are not Gods E&s;&s;ence; and is &s;o common with many Schoolmen, that I will &s;pare the proof (for I perceive its ea&s;ier taking it for granted then proving it) The <HI>minor</HI> none denieth that confe&s;&s;eth God. So that it is granted Mr. <HI>K.</HI> that the&s;e acts were not to be called Tran&s;ient from E|ternity, becau&s;e they were not received, or rather did not produce the effect but in time: But yet the act which in Time received the denomination of Tran&s;ient, was it &s;elf Eternal: God Willed from Eternity that the Creature &s;hould Be in time, and produced it in that time by that Will which was Eternal. So much on that &s;ide.</P>
<P>Now to your Argumentation for the Eternity of Immanent acts, you would receive two &s;everal kindes of An&s;wer from the &s;everal men that I before told you of.</P>
<P>One &s;ort of them think that the Thing it &s;elf which we call an Act, is nothing but Gods E&s;&s;ence, and &s;o Eternal: but that the tran&s;ition of this Act to &s;everal objects (as <HI>Sancta Clara</HI> cals it) or the Application of it to the&s;e objects (as <HI>Burger&s;dicius</HI> &s;peaks) and &s;o the connotation of, and re&s;pect to the&s;e objects, is not Eternal, where the object is not Eternal: and withall they think that the denomi|nation &s;pecifical of the &s;everal Acts, yea and the diver&s;ification&punc; <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> them, is taken from the&s;e <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">emporal tran&s;itions, or applications and re&s;pects to <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">e objects; and therefore that they mu&s;t be u&s;ed as temporal denominations, and it is fitte&s;t to &s;ay, God Knew, Loved, <HI>&amp;c. Peter</HI> as exi&s;ting, not from Eternity, but when he did ex|i&s;t: Yea they think the very name of an Act, is mo&s;t fit to be u&s;ed in this later &s;en&s;e; rather then applied to the pure E&s;&s;ence of God: however &s;ome call him in another &s;en&s;e, a &s;imple Act.</P>
<PB N="55" REF="38">
<P>The other &s;ort of men do think, that the very Act it &s;elf is &s;ome <HI>M<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">dus</HI> or for|mality di&s;tinct from Gods E&s;&s;ence, and may begin without his Mutation, as it may be his without his Compo&s;ition, as I have before &s;aid. Now both the&s;e &s;orts will Reply, that your Charge of [making God not Eternal] and of [making al|teration in God] which you oft repeat, are but your bare word without any proof, and therefore not by them to be regarded. That God fore-knew all things that &s;hould come to pa&s;s they ea&s;ily grant you: but if he know not that to be exi&s;tent, which is but future, or that to be future which is wholly pa&s;t, they &s;ay, this makes not God to be imperfect, or not eternal.</P>
<P>But I marvel that you &s;till call Gods Immanent Acts [Adjuncts in God] which before you al&s;o called Accidents; not fearing hereby to be guilty of making a Compounded God, while you maintain him Eternal: Or not di&s;cern|ing that you give advantage to your Adver&s;ary to maintain, that tho&s;e Ac|cidents or Adjuncts which may be in God without Compo&s;ition, may as well Beginne or End notwith&s;tanding his Immutability, if their Ob|ject be &s;uch as doth Beginne or End. Now to your New Demon|&s;tration.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="19" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 19.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr&punc;</HI> K. <HI>IF there be a ground of putting a New immanent Act in God;</HI> Ergo, <HI>This ground mu&s;t be either in God or the Creature. If a Ground in God which was not before, then an alteration in him beyond reply: a ground in the Creature there can be none to put a new immanent Act in God; for that an immanent Act hath nothing to do with any thing without the Agent, it being herein contradi&s;tingui&s;hed from tran&s;ient Acts, that tran&s;ient Acts</HI> terminantur in pa&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">, <HI>immanent Acts</HI> in agente. <HI>I confe&s;s &s;ome|what without the Agent, is many times, yea commonly the object of immanent Acts: but if ever either the Subject or Term, I will publickly burn my Books, as Mr.</HI> Baxter <HI>de&s;ires his may be, when he goes one note beyond Dr.</HI> Twi&s;s. <HI>I am confident he needs not fear coming &s;o high: I am &s;ure he fals infinitely &s;hort in this Argument, as will appear more fully by what he &s;ubjoyns.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="19" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 19.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> THis is the Demon&s;tration. I &s;hall under&s;tand that word, in your mouth, better hereafter. Your horned Argument will be thus an|&s;wered. The word [Ground] is ambiguous. If you take it largely for any &s;uf|ficient Rea&s;on of the attribution, then there is Ground both in the Creature and in God: But if you take it more &s;trictly for &s;ome one &s;ort of Rea&s;on, then it may be in one and no<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> in the other. The ground may be in the Creature as the Object, and in God as <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">fficient: and in one as the relate, and the other as the correlate. But you &s;ay [<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> in God, then an alteration in him, beyond reply:] that's a pret|ty way to prevent a Reply: But your confident A&s;&s;ertions &s;hall hereafter be annu|merated with the weake&s;t of your Arguments, though called Demon&s;trations.</P>
<P N="1">1. Some will take it for a &s;ufficient Reply to deny your Con&s;equence, and think you had dealt fairlier to have proved it. For they will think that there may be in God an Eternal Ground of a New immanent Act, as well as there is of a New Tran&s;ient act: The <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ewne&s;s of the Act, will no<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> prove the newne&s;s of the Ground. And therefore you ea&s;ily &s;uppo&s;e that it mu&s;t be [a ground in God which was not
<PB N="56" REF="39"> before] if the act be &s;uch as was not before. But this you &s;hould have fore&s;een would be denied. And if you &s;ay, that the newne&s;s or change in the effect doth argue &s;omething changed or new in the cau&s;e; they will deny it; and tell you that then every tran&s;ient act would argue &s;omething new in God.</P>
<P N="2">2. Tho&s;e (of whom I &s;poke before) that maintain that immanent acts as acts need no &s;ubject, will think they reply &s;ufficiently by telling you, that the novity of immanent acts, having a ground in God, will only prove that <HI>aliquid Dei vela Deo</HI> is altered, but not that <HI>aliquid in Deo</HI> is altered: becau&s;e that action &s;peaks but a dependant egre&s;s, and not an inhe&s;ion. The like they will &s;ay as to any form introduced in the &s;ubject by immanent acts, who deny to many and mo&s;t immanent acts, a <HI>terminus;</HI> and particularly to intellection. And if you think that there can be no action without &s;ome effect within or without, I refer you for an an&s;wer to my <HI>Scapula,</HI> as you conceit him.</P>
<P N="3">3. However many of us will hardly be brought to beleeve that Gods immanent acts have in proper &s;en&s;e a <HI>terminus:</HI> though mans may.</P>
<P N="4">4. Some will think they Reply &s;ufficiently, by telling you that by [alteration in God] you mean, either [an alteration of his e&s;&s;ence] and then they deny your con&s;equence: or [an alteration of &s;ome <HI>modus,</HI> or relation, or formality;] and &s;uch they will grant; and &s;ay, as oft before, that it is no more again&s;t Gods immutability, then the exi&s;tence of that <HI>modus,</HI> relation, or formality is again&s;t his &s;implicity.</P>
<P N="5">5. If when God created the world, he had a <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>All con&s;ent not the Rela|tion is only</HI> ex parte crea|turae <HI>and not mutuall.</HI></NOTE> new relation (of Creatour) which he had not before, and this without change, then he may have a new immanent act without change, for ought you know.</P>
<P N="6">6. For Gods acts are not &s;o well known to &s;uch Moles and Bats as you and I are, that we &s;hould be able &s;o peremptory to conclude that the novity of them mu&s;t needs argue him&s;elf to be mutable: we know not &s;o well how much Being, or of what kinde, tho&s;e acts have.</P>
<P>So much for Reply to that which is pa&s;t Reply. Now to the next horn of your Dilemma.</P>
<P>You &s;ay [A ground in the creature there can be none to put a new immanent act in God.] And why? Becau&s;e [an immanent act hath nothing to do with any thing without the Agent.] 1. How? nothing! neither as an occa&s;ion, nor an object? do not you confe&s;s within a few lines that &s;omething without may be its object? It is ordinarily &s;aid, and by &s;ome of your friends, that the Attributes and Immanent acts of God are diver&s;ified only by extrin&s;ick denomination; as an immoveable rock in the &s;ea that is wa&s;ht &s;ometime with one wave and &s;ome|time with another, without its own change: (It &s;eems they take the pa&s;&s;ion or reception of the&s;e motions of the waves, to be no change.) So do diver|&s;ity of objects, &s;ay they, diver&s;ifie Gods acts and attributes <HI>quoad denominationem extrin&s;ecam.</HI> If that be &s;o, then objects &s;pecifie tho&s;e act; <HI>quoad denominationem ex|trin&s;ecam,</HI> which in them&s;elves are but one: and then the &s;aid objects may as well cau&s;e a novity as a diver&s;ity of immanent acts <HI>quoad denominationem extrin&s;ecam:</HI> And then there is no more impropriety in &s;aying, God doth <HI>de Novo</HI> Will or Nill; then in <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">aying, that it is not all one, for God to Will my &s;alvation, and to Nill it: &s;ee what you have brought your cau&s;e to. 2. There are men in the world
<PB N="57" REF="39"> that conceive of God, as we do of the &s;un, that is &s;till &s;hining, but not &s;till &s;hi|ning on this or that creature: it may begin or cea&s;e to &s;hine on this place or that, without any change in it &s;elf or its actual &s;hining: and &s;o they think it is with God as to &s;ome of his acts, which have the creature for their objects: And for your objection, That this is a tran&s;ient act of the &s;un, I &s;hall reply to it anon, where you mention it.</P>
<P>But you are again harping on your old &s;tring; <HI>viz.</HI> [That immanent acts are terminated in the Agent.] And I again tell you, that Gods acts and mans are not &s;o near kin, as that you may conclude of the termination of his acts from the termination of ours: yea I tell you, that I will not beleeve you that Gods willing or knowing the creature hath any <HI>terminus</HI> in him&s;elf (further then as you may &s;ay the creature is in him&s;elf;) that is no <HI>terminus</HI> &s;trictly a&s;cribed to actions di&s;tinct from a meet objective termination. A word of proof. 1. Where there is neither <HI>motus</HI> or mutation there is no <HI>terminus?</HI> But in God acting immanently there is neither <HI>motus vel mutatio:</HI> Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> I think I need not confirm either part. 2. Where there is no effect or form acquired or introduced, there is no <HI>terminus</HI> (in the &s;en&s;e in que&s;tion:) But in God there is no effect or form acquired or in|troduced (by &s;uch immanent acts) Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> The <HI>major</HI> is plain from the common definition of a <HI>terminus.</HI> The <HI>minor</HI> is pa&s;t que&s;tion.</P>
<P>But here you confe&s;s that <HI>the objects of immanent acts may be extrin&s;ick</HI> (Yet I could tell you, that <HI>Viguerius In&s;titut&punc;</HI> and others conclude, that <HI>Voluntas Divina non habet objectum extrin&s;ecum:) but if &s;ubject or term you will burn your Books,</HI> &amp;c. But hold your hand a little. Before I dare be guilty of that, I would fain know what Books they are. But you &s;peak cautelou&s;ly: for you tell us not who &s;hall be Judge in this bu&s;ine&s;s: and if I &s;hould &s;hew you never &s;o many that are again&s;t you, you may keep your word by &s;aying they all mi&s;take, and by being the Judge your &s;elf. But, alas Sir, what cau&s;e have you thus to threaten your Books? Who can riddle the occa&s;ion of it? I tell you, that as good Philo&s;ophers (for ought I yet finde by you) as you, do think that &s;uch acts have no &s;ubject nor term: and you &s;ay, that if any thing extrin&s;ick be the &s;ubject or term you will burn your Books! which if you do, let all bear witne&s;s that I was no occa&s;ion of it: If they have no &s;ubject or term at all, then they can have none without. Sure if you were not very quarrel&s;ome you would not in &s;uch high words feign him to be your adver&s;ary, that &s;aith more again&s;t the oppo&s;ed Point, then your &s;elf</P>
<P>As for that out-leap wherewith you recreate your &s;elf, of my coming &s;o <HI>high</HI> as Dr. <HI>Twi&s;s,</HI> in the &s;en&s;e I &s;poke I yet de&s;ire it not; in the &s;en&s;e you &s;peak (lu&s;orily) I expect it not: nor do I know any man &s;o &s;imple as to compare me with him, or that needed this learned Digre&s;&s;ion. Yet I confe&s;s I thought my &s;elf &s;omewhat neerer both Dr. <HI>Twi&s;s</HI> and your &s;elf then you &s;uppo&s;e me to be: For though I was ready to obey your conclu&s;ive command, of adoring the foot&s;teps of &s;uch, yet I thought not that I had come <HI>infinitely &s;hort,</HI> as you here inform me, I do. I thought only God had infinitely excelled the meane&s;t creature. Nay then, if you will be needs our Gods, <HI>Numina Academica,</HI> I am afraid you will &s;hortly be lower then men; and le&s;t I &s;hall hear that news which I equally fear and ab|horre, that you and &s;uch like will ere long be ca&s;t out of that Academical Para|di&s;e. But let that go: I &s;uppo&s;e [infinitely] was but a high word, by a high &s;pirit, <HI>qua&s;i ab alto,</HI> from a high place. I have &s;tood my &s;elf ere now on a moun|tain, and every thing in the valley &s;eemed &s;mall to me.</P>
<PB N="58" REF="40">
<P>But I forgot to tell you one thing: that (though I &s;uppo&s;e I know what kinde of termination you mean, yet) you &s;hould have &s;poken more cautelou&s;ly, and di&s;tingui&s;hed, and told your Reader more plainly what you deny; and not have re&s;olved to burn your Books, if we prove things without the Agent to be a term in general. For you know that we di&s;tingui&s;h of Objects into Motive and Termi|native; and ordinarily &s;ay that the creatures are terminative objects of Gods Will, though not moving objects. <HI>Meuri&s;&s;e</HI> &s;aith (<HI>Metaphy&s;. Scot. li. 1. Q.</HI> 15. pag. 127.) <HI>Objectum &s;ecundarium non pote&s;t movere intellectum divinum ad cognitionem &s;ui, licet po&s;&s;it illum terminare, ut docent Theologi.</HI> And <HI>Schibler li. 2. c. 3. tit. 15. n. 507. Non qua&s;i putemus e&s;&s;e aliquid quod act<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">et qua&s;i voluntatem divinam, (quod officium alias &s;olet e&s;&s;e objectorum, in ordine ad habitus &amp; potentias,) &s;ed quia apprehendimus volun|tatem Divinam Terminari ad aliquid quod hactenus habet rationem objecti. Est enim ad rationem objecti &s;atis, &s;i terminet actum aliquem.</HI> And <HI>Punct. 2. n.</HI> 510. the a&s;&s;ertion is, <HI>Dei voluntas terminatur etiam ad res creatas.</HI> But enough of that. Now lets &s;ee the proof of our infinite di&s;tance.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="20" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 20.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. [AS for God to know that the world doth now exi&s;t: that &s;uch a man is &s;an|ctified, ju&s;t,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Gods foreknowledge is not a knowing that &s;uch a thing is which is not, but that &s;uch a thing will be which is not: yet doth this make no change in God, no more then the &s;un i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> changed by the variety of creatures which it doth enlighten and warm; or the gla&s;&s;e by the variety of faces which it repre&s;enteth, or the eye by the variety of colours which it beholdeth: (For, what&s;oever &s;ome &s;ay, I do not think that every variation of the object makes a reall change in the eye, or that the beholding of ten di&s;tinct colours at one view doth make ten di&s;tinct acts of the fight, or alterations on it: Aph.</HI> p. 173, 174.] <HI>I cannot tell what to make of this rope, but &s;and it is, and nothing el&s;e, as &s;hall &s;trait appear; and how ill a match this Authour was, thus to de&s;cend in</HI> arenam <HI>with</HI> Twi&s;&s;e, Pemble, <HI>and I dare &s;ay all the &s;ober Divines that ever were worthy to &s;peak to a School Point.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="20" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 20.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B. SAnguinolent</HI> men do dream of &s;ighting and killing: It &s;eems you have ac|cu&s;tomed your minde &s;o to contending, that through the errour of your phanta&s;ie, all words &s;eem chidings, and all actions &s;eem fightings to you: And &s;o you dreamed not only that I was in <HI>arena,</HI> but 2. that Dr. <HI>Twi&s;&s;e</HI> and Mr. <HI>P.</HI> were there with me. 3. Yea and all Divines worthy to &s;peak to a School Point. 4. And that we were there coping for ma&s;teries: and in the end of your dream you ri&s;e up as Judge and give them the better, and proclaim me an ill match. But 1. he that reades my Book will finde that I argue not as from my &s;elf, but only &s;hew how other mens argumentations do manife&s;t &s;uch a difficulty in the Point, that we &s;hould not lay too great a &s;tre&s;s on it; as I have &s;hewed you before in the explication of my own words. Nay I do not once deny the Point (that imma|nent acts are eternal) but only &s;ay, It is much que&s;tioned (by others) whether they are any more eternal then tran&s;ient acts: and annex a touch of &s;ome mens arguings for it: concluding only in a parenthe&s;is, that the Point is, as I think, beyond our reach. So much to the fir&s;t fiction. 2. And if I contended not with any then not with Dr. <HI>Twi&s;s</HI> and Mr. <HI>P.</HI> on this Point: it being plain that it is
<PB N="59" REF="40"> on another Point that I deal with them. Thats for the &s;econd fiction. 3. The third is mounted with great confidence; you [dare &s;ay:] What dare you &s;ay&punc; Why that I [thus de&s;cend in <HI>arenam</HI> with all the &s;ober Divines that ever were worthy to &s;peak to a School Point.] You are a daring man, that dare &s;ay this. But I have ta&s;ted &s;o much of your temper before, that I perceive your veracity is oft lea&s;t where your audacity is greate&s;t: I thought I had contended with no man in tho&s;e words; and you dare &s;ay, I contend with all men, worthy to &s;peak to a School Point. What if it had been true that I had been here contending, and that again&s;t a Point which all the&s;e hold? doth it indeed follow that I do in <HI>are|na<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> de&s;cendere</HI> with them all? and &s;eek to match them? And what rea&s;on have we that know you not, to take you for Judge of all the Divines in the world, who &s;hall be accounted &s;ober, and who not; and who is worthy to &s;peak to a School Point, and who not? Or why &s;hould I think you more worthy then the Learned men that I have before named, <HI>Ly<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">hetus, Pennottus, Burger&s;dici|us,</HI> &amp;c?</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="21" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 21.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. TO know that the world doth now exi&s;t when once it did not, and that &s;uch a man now is &s;anctified which before he was not, makes no change in God, but only &s;hews a change in the object: but to know now that the world</HI> doth <HI>exi&s;t which before God did not know, or to know now that &s;uch a man is &s;anctified, who before was not, which before God did not know, makes a change in God, as well as the object.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="21" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 21.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> VVHo would look for &s;uch an&s;wers from you, that had heard you judge of School Divines with &s;uch Authority? The fir&s;t part of your An&s;wer is not again&s;t any thing that I &s;aid: The &s;econd is a meer begging of the Que&s;tion. Some think that <HI>quoad &s;ub&s;tantiam actus</HI> Gods knowledge is the &s;ame whatever the object be; but yet becau&s;e [Knowing this or that] connoteth the object with the act, therefore the eternal e&s;&s;ence of God &s;imply in it &s;elf con|&s;idered is not to be called [Knowledge] much le&s;s [the knowledge of this or that creature;] and that without the object it neither is Knowledge, nor ought to be &s;o called; and &s;o as from the object we di&s;tingui&s;h Gods Knowing and Willing, &s;o mu&s;t we the &s;everal acts of his knowledge; and though the act <HI>quoad &s;ubstantiam,</HI> which we call [Knowledge] in God be but one, yet the <HI>ratio formalis</HI> which mu&s;t give the denomination, being in the re&s;pect of that one act to its objects, it is mo&s;t fit to &s;ay that Gods knowledge of <HI>Peters</HI> &s;alvation and <HI>Judas</HI> damnation, is not the &s;ame knowledge, though it be the &s;ame &s;ub&s;tantial act: the like is &s;aid of his Will: And as this mu&s;t be &s;aid without wrong to his &s;implicity, &s;o the like mu&s;t be &s;aid of his beginning or cea&s;ing to Know, without wrong to his immutability: and that as it&punc; is not all one for God to know the Futurity and the pre&s;ent exi&s;tence of a thing, &s;o we mu&s;t &s;ay, that he began to know the pre&s;ent exi&s;tence when the thing began to exi&s;t, and that God did not know before the creation, that this propo&s;ition was true, <HI>Petrus exi&s;tit:</HI> and that he cea&s;eth to know the Futurition of a thing that cea&s;eth to be future; and that God doth not now know, that Chri&s;t will be born and dye and ri&s;e: and that therefore immanent acts in God are not
<PB N="60" REF="41"> to be &s;aid to be all eternal; but only tho&s;e that have an eternal object; becau&s;e the act is to be denominated from its re&s;pect to the object: and therefore it being Gods Knowing and Willing which we call immanent acts here, where it is un|meet to &s;ay that act of Knowledge or Will is eternall, then it is unmeet to &s;ay, Gods immanent acts are eternal: but when you will expre&s;s Gods immutability, it is fitter to &s;ay [God is unchangeable, or Gods e&s;&s;ence or nature is eternall,] then to &s;ay, his knowledge, will, or immanent acts (in this &s;en&s;e) are &s;o: becau&s;e when we connote not the object, we are to call it Gods E&s;&s;ence, and not Gods Knowledge, Will, or &s;uch acts: &s;o that here is no real change in God him&s;elf, but only a re&s;pective, or modal, or formal (as the <HI>Scotists</HI> &s;peak) or &s;uch as we can|not now apprehend, affording new objective conceptions; all the change being in the creature.</P>
<P>Now how doth Mr. <HI>K.</HI> prove that this doctrine mu&s;t [make a change in God as well as the object?] why he learnedly affirmeth it. He that can finde a word more, let him make his be&s;t of it. But in this ca&s;e, all the proof lieth on the af|fimer; which we might well have expected from him.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="22" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 22.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. ANd therefore all &s;ober Divines u&s;e to be wary in their expre&s;&s;ions in this kinde; acknowledging no difference between Gods knowledge and foreknowledge, but this, that his foreknowledge is in order to the object only, and not of any act of Gods: &s;o that it is not oppo&s;ed to</HI> po&s;t-<HI>&s;cience, but it &s;ignifieth only a futurity of the object, as was &s;hewed at large in the third Chapter. God knows that that is to day which was not ye&s;terday; but God as perfectly knew it ye&s;terday as to day, and knew at once, all the various &s;ucce&s;&s;ions in time; or did he otherwi&s;e, a change cannot po&s;&s;ibly be avoided, notwith&s;tanding all Ma&s;ter</HI> Baxter <HI>alleadgeth to the con|trary.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="22" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 22.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. IF your fir&s;t &s;entence be true, I mu&s;t lament the paucity of &s;ober Di|vines; for &s;ure I am, that of tho&s;e which have written on the&s;e Points, too few have been wary in their expre&s;&s;ions: and no wonder when they are no more wary in their conceptions; and when men dare maintain them&s;elves to have that capacity which they have not, and to know certainly that which they do not, and might ea&s;ily know they do not: When even &s;uch learned men as you will not be per&s;waded that the&s;e things are above your reach, but do with &s;uch haughty con|tention oppo&s;e one poor &s;entence in a Parenthe&s;is (which is all my &s;entence) wherein I &s;ay, it is beyond our reach.</P>
<P N="2">2. You lift up your &s;elf too high, in taking on you to judge all tho&s;e Divines to be un&s;ober, that are not in this of your opinion.</P>
<P N="3">3. If the word [pre&s;cience] &s;ignifie only a futurity of the object, then the&s;e are equipollent expre&s;&s;ions [<HI>Deus hoc prae&s;cit</HI>] and [<HI>Hoc e&s;t futurum:</HI>] but that is not true.</P>
<P N="4">4. The &s;ame humane frailty and di&s;tance from God, which makes it nece&s;&s;ary to us to a&s;cribe Acting, Knowing and Willing to God, and to conceive of him under the&s;e notions, doth equally nece&s;&s;itate us to conceive of his Knowledge and Will, as di&s;tinct, and not altogether the &s;ame: el&s;e we &s;hould a&s;cribe a meer name,
<PB N="61" REF="41"> without any conception of the thing named: For we cannot conceive of any &s;uch Knowledge as is the &s;ame with Willing, nor of any &s;uch Willing which is the &s;ame with Nilling; and yet we beleeve the &s;implicity of God. And the &s;ame ne|ce&s;&s;ity that compelleth us to conceive of Gods Knowing, Willing and Nilling, as divers, <HI>ab objectorum diver&s;itate,</HI> doth compell us to conceive of his Know|ledge of things as Future, and his Knowledge of things exi&s;tent, as divers: yet &s;till we deny a Mutation of God him&s;elf; only we conceive as the Sco|ti&s;ts, that there is a diver&s;ity of the objective conceptions, and that our various denominations have <HI>fundamentum in re:</HI> but what it is, let him tell that knows.</P>
<P N="5">5. Again&s;t all this that which you oppo&s;e is but your naked a&s;&s;ertion, which I regard le&s;s then perhaps you expected. I affirm the uncertainty, and you the certainty; and therefore it is you that &s;hould prove that certainty which you af|firm to have: For no man hath a certainty without &s;ome evidence or other to force a&s;&s;ent; and therefore that evidence &s;hould be produced, if you are indeed a man of as Angelicall intellectuals as you &s;eem to conceit your &s;elf.</P>
<P N="6">6. God did ye&s;terday know tha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> the &s;un is not ri&s;en to day, <HI>i. e.</HI> that to day is not come: You will &s;ay, he did at the &s;ame time ye&s;terday know that to day is come and the &s;un is ri&s;en? &s;ome will think to make this true, you mu&s;t verifie contradictories, and &s;ay, [It is] and [It is not] at once, may both be ab&s;olute|ly true (and then farewell our fir&s;t Metaphy&s;icall certainty in compo&s;ition.) Or el&s;e you mu&s;t a&s;&s;ert the coexi&s;tence of all things with God in eternity; which how loath you will be to admit, I conjecture partly from the tendency of your tenets, and partly from your adhe&s;ion to Dr. <HI>Twi&s;&s;e,</HI> and others of his minde.</P>
<P N="7">7. For your third Chapter I have &s;aid as much to it already as I finde either need or li&s;t, being loath you &s;hould ca&s;t on me Ma&s;ter <HI>Goodwins</HI> task.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="23" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 23.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. ANd to the fir&s;t illu&s;tration the ca&s;e is &s;trangely different; yet I confe&s;s, if it did hold, it would prove the point</HI> a fortiori: Thus the &s;un, <HI>&s;aith he,</HI> en|lightens and warms variety of creatures, yet is not changed: therefore nor need God be &s;aid to be changed, though he know to day a variation in the creature: <HI>I yield all the conclu&s;ion: but all that is nothing to the purpo&s;e&punc; for the que&s;tion is not whether to know a variation in the creature prove a change in God? but whether a varia|tion of the acts of his knowledge, according to the variation in the creatures do not prove a change in him? now the putting of a new immanent act, as a new knowing, is a putting of variation upon him.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="23" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 23.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. VVEre my advice of any weight with you, I &s;hould per&s;wade you never to expect any illu&s;tration of Gods immanent acts by the creature, without a great difference in the ca&s;e: and therefore that you would no more take &s;uch difference as &s;o <HI>&s;trange.</HI> 2. Your conce&s;&s;ion that it will prove the point <HI>a fortiori,</HI> if it hold, is as much as I could de&s;ire or expect. 3. A man would think, that the argument you here lay down as mine, were mine indeed,
<PB N="62" REF="42"> who findes &s;o Learned a Divine &s;aying &s;o, that &s;hould abhorre fal&s;hood: when you put the words in a di&s;tinct character, with a [&s;aith he,] as if they had been my expre&s;s terms: but I de&s;ire the Reader not to judge of all your Writings by &s;uch pa&s;&s;ages as this: He may &s;peak true at one time, that yet takes liberty to &s;peak fal&s;ly at another. You did take the ea&s;ie&s;t cour&s;e imaginable, to fain a con|clu&s;ion which you could grant, and then to grant it and &s;ay it is nothing to the bu&s;ine&s;s. 4. I will not con&s;ent to your &s;tating the que&s;tion in new terms of your own, in the mid&s;t of a di&s;pute. Do not feign me to di&s;pute any que&s;tion which you make many years after my Writing, and which is not to be found in my Wri|ting in terms. 5. The word [Act] may &s;ignifie 1. the Divine e&s;&s;ence; and &s;o he that feigns a new act feigns a new God: 2. Or that mode, formality, re&s;|pect (or whatever el&s;e it is to be called,) of God, ari&s;ing from the nature or &s;tate of extrin&s;ick objects; which <HI>Burger&s;dicius</HI> cals, the Application to the Object The que&s;tion is only of this now, which &s;ome think may mo&s;t fitly be called, Gods acts. Your naked repeated affirmation that a variation is put on God, when you prove it not, I take no more for a Demon&s;tration.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="24" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 24.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. SEcondly, When we are &s;peaking of immanent acts, what have we to do with the &s;uns enlightening or warming? I had thought tho&s;e had been tran&s;ient acts, and &s;o not proper in this ca&s;e! Yet</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="24" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 24.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> REmember you not the <HI>crude</HI> que&s;tion that we were on? [Whether &s;uch immanent acts are any more eternall then tran&s;ient acts?] The Que&s;ti|oni&s;ts mean it <HI>quoad formalem naturam actus;</HI> for they take the denominations of [immanent] and [tran&s;ient] to be but from the effect or <HI>terminus:</HI> And that you may &s;ee what they imagined, when they mention the &s;imilitude of the &s;un, let me intreat you to &s;uppo&s;e for di&s;putation &s;ake (<HI>per po&s;&s;ibile vel impo&s;&s;ibile</HI>) that God had made at fir&s;t no creature but the &s;un: I would fain know whether that &s;un in &s;hining and ca&s;ting out its rayes and emanation, did act immanently or tran&s;iently?&punc; I conceive not tran&s;iently: becau&s;e there were no &s;ubjects exi&s;ting into which its act &s;hould pa&s;s, or which &s;hould as its extrin&s;ick <HI>terminus</HI> receive from it any new form. It &s;eems then it mu&s;t be immanently: but that is but <HI>in &s;en&s;u Negativo&punc;</HI> becau&s;e it is not tran&s;ient: &s;uppo&s;e next that the re&s;t of the creatures were afterwards made, and placed as they are under the influence of this &s;un, and &s;o were the receptive &s;ubjects of its action: Is it not the &s;ame &s;ort of Action, without any change in it &s;elf, which before was immanent, and now is become tran&s;ient?</P>
<P>But I need &s;ay no more to this; for you are plea&s;ed to confe&s;s.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="25" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 25.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. YEt thirdly, Did it hold, I yield it were</HI> Argumentum a majori ad minus&punc; <HI>If the &s;un be not changed notwith&s;tanding all its warmth and lightening, then neither were God. But &s;ure the &s;un is changed, and changeth perpetually, and could not act as a Univer&s;all cau&s;e upon the great variety of creatures in the world, did it not rejoice
<PB N="63" REF="42"> like a Gyant to run its cour&s;e; did it &s;tand &s;till but one year together at one point, yea or but walk within one Hemisphere for a year, What &s;hould we do for that variety of &s;ea&s;ons we need? All Summer would be as bad as all Winter. In oppo&s;ition to this change of the Sun, is the Father of Lights &s;aid to be without &s;hadow of turning. He hath no &s;uch</HI> Sol&s;tices <HI>or</HI> Tropicks; <HI>no motions, but a perpetual permanency. There is a great differ|ence between Immanent acts and tran&s;ient: that &s;uppo&s;ing the Sun to &s;tand &s;till as in</HI> Jo|&s;hua's <HI>time, and to act without motion; here were no alteration to be acknowledged in the Sun, notwith&s;tanding all the variety of objects, yea and variety of operations upon tho&s;e objects, all which might proceed from the &s;ame Act as to the Sun, the difference being meerly in the Patient: As for in&s;tance, the &s;ame live-coal doth at once by its heat melt the wax, and harden the clay; here are different tran&s;ient acts, but no change or differ|ence at all in the fire; but only in the di&s;po&s;ition of the matter on which it works. But in Immanent acts the Ca&s;e is contrary; for they being in the &s;ubject, the variation of them makes an alteration in that, and not the object: as the &s;ame man unchanged may be the ob|ject &s;ometimes of mens Love, &s;ometimes of their hatred: the variety of the&s;e acts makes a difference in the Agent, doth not alwayes &s;uppo&s;e any in the Object; and &s;o here, Gods knowing now that this is, Gods not knowing ye&s;terday, that it is now, makes a change in God, but indeed God cannot be &s;aid now to know that &s;uch a thing is, but to know that now &s;uch a thing is [which was not before] and this he did know, what ever is now even from all eternity, his pre&s;cience being a Knowledge</HI> in prae&s;enti <HI>to him&punc; though not</HI> de prae|&s;enti, <HI>as to the object; again&s;t who&s;e being in eternity more &s;hall be &s;aid hereafter again&s;t M</HI>^r Goodwin, <HI>but now I attend M</HI>^r Baxter, <HI>who proceeds.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="25" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 25.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. YOu &s;eem rather to an&s;wer in je&s;t then in earne&s;t, when you tell us of the Suns local motion, when our Que&s;tion was, Whether [the Sun be changed by the variety of Creatures which it doth enlighten and warm] that is, Whether it &s;elf receive any change from the <HI>terminus</HI> or objects of its acts? Do you intend the information of your Reader, or the di&s;covery of Truth, when you &s;huffle in &s;uch an alien An&s;wer? 2. All that its good for, that I know of, is to acquaint us, that you have &s;ome full Demon&s;tration again&s;t <HI>Copernicus,</HI> which hath given you a Certainty that he erres; And if one&punc; &s;hould hear it, perhaps it would prove like your Ordinary Demon&s;trations: for that which is hint<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d in your words, &s;eems of kin to them. 3. You yield all that I &s;ay concerning the Sun, acknowledging that it is not changed by the variety of Objects: And in the fir&s;t words you &s;ay [Did it hold, I yield it were <HI>Argumentum &agrave; majori ad minus.</HI>] Lay both the&s;e together, and judge whether you yield not the whole Cau&s;e which you oppo&s;ed. 4. You &s;till harp on the old &s;tring, affirming, Immanent Acts to be in the Subject, and that their variation alters it, when as good Philo&s;ophers &s;ay they have no Subject, and that Vi&s;ion, Intellection, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> have no <HI>Termini:</HI> Your naked affirmations &s;o oft repeated, rather weary then convince. 5. How|ever you cannot from mans Immanent Acts, argue to Gods, unle&s;s they were more like. 6. I am un&s;atisfied whether a Tran&s;ient Act (though not <HI>qua</HI> Tran|&s;ient) make not as much alteration on the Agent as an Immanent? Whether a Tran&s;ient act be not the &s;ame with the Immanent, containing in it all that it contains, with the &s;uperaddition of its Reception in, and effect upon a Pa&s;&s;ive Subject? As in the fore-mentioned in&s;tance: If the Sun had been created fir&s;t alone, its action whereby it now lighteth and heateth, would have been imma|nent;
<PB N="64" REF="43"> and yet when the &s;ame action &s;hall afterwards become tran&s;ient by the ad|dition of other creatures to be its Objects, who will imagine that it is ever the le&s;s in the Subject (as you &s;ay) or that the alteration of it would make ever the le&s;s change of the Agent? I confe&s;s, I conceive not yet why there &s;hould in this point of changing the Agent be any difference between Immanent acts and Tran|&s;ient: though I ea&s;ily conceive that one only doth change the object. 7. Your friend M^r <HI>Jeanes,</HI> pag. 231. u&s;eth the &s;imilitude of [a Rock in a River &s;tanding immovable, notwith&s;tanding the &s;ucce&s;&s;ion in the waters that glide by it;] which I think is as defective a &s;imilitude, as the&s;e here u&s;ed: yet its plain, that you cannot truly &s;ay, This Rock toucheth the water that is an hundred miles from it. Suppo&s;e the Sun were an eye, and could &s;ee all the world at once, and that <HI>pura activitate &s;ine receptione &s;pecierum ab objectis:</HI> Suppo&s;e one man be born, or one flower &s;pring up this day, which was not in being or vi&s;ible ye&s;terday: This Sun would &s;ee that to day which it did not &s;ee ye&s;terday without any mutation in it &s;elf: And yet <HI>&s;eeing</HI> is an Immanent act. Now I would know, whether it be fit to &s;ay, This Sun &s;ees that as in <HI>being</HI> which is not in being: Or, Whether it be not fit|te&s;t to &s;ay [It begins to day to &s;ee that Creature which begun this day to exi&s;t] though by &s;o beginning it be not changed? Its true, God <HI>fore-knows</HI> all things that &s;hall be: but that is not to <HI>know that they be,</HI> but that <HI>they &s;hall be.</HI> 8. M^r <HI>Jeans ibid.</HI> &s;aith [Yet this is no hinderance but that there may be and is a change in the extrin&s;ecal Denominations of Gods knowledge from the variation of the objects hereof, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>] &s;o others commonly: And may I not hence conclude, 1. That then I may denominate Gods knowledge of the pre&s;ent exi&s;tence of things, as Beginning with its object: and his knowledge of the exi&s;tence or futurity of things, as Ending with its object; that is, when the thing cea&s;eth to be future or to exi&s;t? 2. And may I not conclude, that this Denomination is fitte&s;t, and &s;o tho&s;e that thus &s;peak, do &s;peak more fitly then they that &s;peak otherwi&s;e? 3. And that there is &s;ome <HI>fundamentum in re</HI> for &s;uch a denomination: or el&s;e it were an unfit denomination, &s;eeing names and words &s;hould be fitted to the things &s;ignified as neer as may be? 9. Do not you imply as much your &s;elf, when you &s;ay his Pre&s;cience is a Knowledge <HI>in prae&s;enti</HI> to him, though not <HI>de prae&s;enti?</HI> You confe&s;s then that God doth not know <HI>de prae&s;enti,</HI> the things that now are not: but when they exi&s;t he knoweth them <HI>de prae&s;enti;</HI> I confe&s;s the doctrine of the co|exi&s;tence of all things with God in Eternity, would &s;alve many of the&s;e things: but that you here di&s;claim. 10. Where you &s;ay, that [Indeed God cannot be &s;aid Now to know that &s;uch a thing is, but to know that now &s;uch a thing is (which was not before, as in the <HI>Errat.</HI> you adde)] it is a &s;aying which I under|&s;tand not, and conjecture it is &s;till maimed of &s;ome nece&s;&s;ary limb which &s;hould make it &s;peak your &s;en&s;e: For I hope you do not believe what ever you &s;ay, That Indeed God cannot be &s;aid Now to know that tho&s;e things are, which are indeed: If he know it not Now, when will he know it?</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="26" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 26.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. AS the gla&s;s by the variety of faces which it repre&s;ents, <HI>hoc e&s;t, as the gla&s;s without any change in it repre&s;ents various faces,</HI> now one, now ano|ther; <HI>&s;o doth God know various objects, now one, now another, yet without change. The Antecedent is manife&s;tly fal&s;e; for that each of the&s;e &s;everal faces ca&s;t a new</HI> &s;pecies <HI>on the gla&s;s, and tho&s;e &s;everal</HI> &s;pecies <HI>make &s;everal changes. For this purpo&s;e Mr.</HI> Baxter
<PB N="65" REF="43"> <HI>might have remembred what his great Logick and Metaphy&s;ick Ma&s;ters &s;ay, concerning</HI> Ens intentionale, <HI>that it is oppo&s;ed to</HI> reale <HI>and</HI> materiale: <HI>The</HI> &s;pecies <HI>in the gla&s;s is indeed</HI> Ens intentionale, <HI>in oppo&s;ition to</HI> Materiale, <HI>it is not &s;o in oppo&s;ition to</HI> Reale: <HI>But their putting and</HI> non-<HI>putting, or the pre&s;ence and ab&s;ence of the</HI> &s;pecies, <HI>makes a real change, though not a material one in the gla&s;s&punc; &s;o real a one as that it may be &s;een, though not a material one that the childe that catcheth at is ever like to take hold of it; Plainly thus, That is a Real Accident which is in the Subject really, and &s;o is that</HI> &s;pecies, <HI>for we &s;ee it in the gla&s;s; that is a Material Accident which is &s;o in the &s;ubject as to de|pend on it alone for its &s;upport, without influence of the efficient; heat or cold have &s;uch dependance on the &s;ubject, as that that alone can maintain them; as the heat will &s;tick a while in the water, though taken off from the fire, and cold in my hand, though taken out of the water: But the&s;e Intentional Accidents though really in the &s;ubject, yet are &s;o little &s;upported by it, as that if the efficient do not continue its influence, they immediately peri&s;h as light in the air, the&s;e</HI> &s;pecies, <HI>whether in my gla&s;s or my eye; who hath &s;o much Logick and Metaphy&s;icks to &s;pill upon all occa&s;ions as Mr.</HI> Baxter, <HI>would have betrayed, I will not &s;ay ignorance, but incogitancy in &s;o trivial a punctillio? Onwards, the ca&s;e is the &s;ame for the</HI> &s;pecies <HI>in the eye and the gla&s;s, and a change is made by the pre&s;ence or ab&s;ence of the</HI> &s;pecies.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="26" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 26.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B. DI&s;putatore nimium foelici, nihil infoelicius; &amp; nimium &s;apiente quis minus &s;a|piens?</HI> If I &s;pill as much Logick upon all occa&s;ions, as you do words, &s;ure I am a voluminous Logician, and make up in number what I want in weight. You wanted an opportunity to multiply words, for ought I know to no purpo&s;e, unle&s;s to acquaint the unob&s;ervant world with your well-furni&s;hed Intellect, that they may be a&s;&s;ured, that you have all tho&s;e things at your fingers end, as trivial punctillio's, which I am &s;o ignorant of; and the&s;e few words of mine have occa|&s;ioned the opening of your pack, and the expan&s;ion of your wares.</P>
<P>But, 1. You are fain to u&s;e the old artifice of putting my words but as the ground of your paraphra&s;e, and then dealing with that paraphra&s;e of your own. This is not &s;o innocent as common a trick. I &s;peak of a change [<HI>of the gla&s;s</HI>] and you put [<HI>a change in it:</HI>] Had not you newly ri&s;en up as the final decider, I &s;hould have &s;aid, it is yet <HI>&s;ub Judice,</HI> whether the Intentional or Spiritual Being, in que&s;tion, be indeed <HI>Res</HI> or not? And &s;o whether it make any Real change in the gla&s;s. I confe&s;s you ea&s;ily di&s;patch the bu&s;ine&s;s, which makes me think of <HI>Gorlaeus</HI> words, <HI>Exercit. Philo&s;. 7. &sect;. 2. p. 108. Quid species &s;int vi&s;ibiles inquirendum e&s;t: Tam enim earum natura intellectui e&s;t ignota, quam ee &s;en&s;ibus notae. Peripateti|cis tamen &amp; hic, &s;icut &amp; alibi facilis expeditio. Qualitates aiunt e&s;&s;e &s;pirituales, &amp; corporis e&s;&s;e objectivum, quod habet in &s;peculo vel &s;imili corpori. Nobis hoc non est &s;a|tis: qui quaerimus porr&ograve;, quid qualitas &s;piritalis, aut quomodo corpus objective po&s;|&s;it e&s;&s;e in &s;peculo? Nam hae videntur contradictionem quandam implicare, cor|poris dari qualitatem &s;piritalem, &amp; rem extra &s;peculum exi&s;tentem e&s;&s;e in &s;peculo,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P N="2">2. But &s;ee what unreverent thoughts &s;uch Ignorants as I, are apt to have of learned men! I am confidently per&s;waded, that you, who are &s;o fully acquainted with Gods Nature and Immanent Acts, as to be at a certainty where I am at a lo&s;s, for all that do not know what that is that you &s;ee with your eyes; nor whether it be in the gla&s;s or not! And therefore the Lecture that you have read me of <HI>Ens intentionale</HI> hath been lo&s;t labour as to me!</P>
<P N="3"><PB N="66" REF="44">3. And you had done but your part if you had ob&s;erved that I &s;peak not of the meer Reception of the agents action, but of the Repre&s;entation to us of the <HI>&s;pecies:</HI> which &s;hould not be confounded.</P>
<P N="4">4. Are you &s;ure that it is from the object, that the gla&s;s receives that variati|on that you imagine? If it be, Rocks and &s;tones are more active creatures then &s;ome dull &s;ouls will ea&s;ily believe; when at the &s;ame time the &s;ame Rock or moun|tain may perform 100000 actions upon &s;o many eyes or gla&s;&s;es. Yea if in the mid&s;t of the Action of this &s;tone or Rock, you do but give your gla&s;s a knock, and break it into a hundred pieces, it will multiply the action of the Rock an hun|dred fold; and that without touching or coming near the Agent! Is it not pretty &s;port to &s;ee the activity of the&s;e nimble Rocks and Mountains? I am one of tho&s;e Hereticks, that think the&s;e works of God mu&s;t be the matter of our admiration, but cannot be comprehended by us here: and that it is no good con&s;equence, that be|cau&s;e you and your fellows nakedly affirm the contrary (yea notwith&s;tanding all your proofs) therefore <HI>Des Cartes,</HI> S^r <HI>K. Digby. White, Hobbes,</HI> be&s;ides all the old Adver&s;aries, are certainly in errour. I &s;hall acknowledge more action of the Light, or air on the gla&s;s, then of the object, which &s;eems but <HI>&s;ine qua non.</HI> But withall I &s;u&s;pect, that the &s;ame Light or air doth perform the &s;ame action in the gla&s;s when you &s;tand not before it, or when the object is ab&s;ent; and yet no <HI>&s;pe|cies</HI> is then &s;een; no nor vi&s;ible. And I think that there is the &s;ame action on eve|ry gla&s;s-window, yea on every wall, or &s;tone, or other body, as is on your <HI>&s;peculum;</HI> and yet you &s;ee nothing on them as you do on it. And <HI>Hobbes</HI> &s;aith, That it is in the eye and not in the gla&s;s, which you think you &s;ee in the gla&s;s (his reproaching of our Doctrine of vi&s;ible <HI>&s;pecies,</HI> I pretermit:) and if &s;o, then there is not &s;o much alteration in the gla&s;s, as you imagine. And indeed, you &s;ay little to prove it. If your Argument from &s;ight would prove any thing, it would prove that the face is a foot or a yard (or more if you draw back) behinde the gla&s;s, and not in the gla&s;s: And yet if you go behinde you &s;hall &s;ee nothing: Will you believe your eyes that things change into &s;uch various colours, and &s;hapes, and quantities as &s;ome gla&s;&s;es by &s;mall mutations of po&s;ture do repre&s;ent them? Will you believe your eyes that a &s;trait &s;taff is crooked in the water? I can tell you by my ob&s;erva|tion when I was a Boy, that if you will kill a Fi&s;h in a River with a Gun, you mu&s;t allow much to the fallacy of your <HI>medium.</HI> If then either it be the action of the light or air, or &s;omething el&s;e, and not the object, then it is nothing to me, who &s;poke only again&s;t a change by variation of objects: Or if the fore&s;aid action being &s;uppo&s;ed to be the &s;ame on the gla&s;s, when &s;everal objects, or no ob|jects are before it, that which is &s;uperadded from the object is <HI>nihil reale,</HI> this is nothing again&s;t me: Or if the <HI>&s;pecies</HI> which &s;eems a foot behinde the gla&s;s be not in the gla&s;s, but in the eye or &s;ome where el&s;e, and &s;o the gla&s;s be more truly an Agent by Reflection, then a Recipient of that <HI>&s;pecies</HI> which I &s;ee, &s;till this is no|thing again&s;t what I &s;aid. So that laying a&s;ide all that Reception of the action of light, or any thing el&s;e, which the gla&s;s receives when there is no object pre|&s;ent, and laying a&s;ide all that which is Received into the eye and air, and not in the gla&s;s, and whereof the gla&s;s is but a <HI>Cau&s;a &s;ine qua non;</HI> then call the re&s;t an <HI>Ens intentionale</HI> or <HI>&s;pirituale,</HI> or what you will; but prove it to be <HI>quid reale</HI> altering the gla&s;s, and do not nakedly affirm it.</P>
<P>You &s;ay, that my great Logick and Metaphy&s;ick Ma&s;ters &s;ay, That <HI>Ens intentio|nale,</HI> is oppo&s;ed to <HI>Reale &amp; Materiale:</HI> and yet you &s;ay that the <HI>&s;pecies</HI> in the gla&s;s is not oppo&s;ed to <HI>Ens reale.</HI> It is, and it is not, &s;eem reconcilable to you then without
<PB N="67" REF="44"> a di&s;tinction. Indeed as Real is oppo&s;ed to [feigned] I doubt not it is Real, but as it is oppo&s;ed to Modes and Relations, and &s;uch like, that &s;ome place between <HI>Ens</HI> and <HI>Nihil,</HI> it mu&s;t better be known what it is, then the name of <HI>Ens intentionale</HI> or <HI>&s;pirituale</HI> will acquaint us, before we can conclude for certain that it is Real.</P>
<P>As for your Material Accident, it will require more ado to prove, that there is any &s;uch thing in the world, as an Accident depending on the Subject alone for &s;upport, e&s;pecially a quality, as you in&s;tance in: Sure you intend not the withdrawing of the influence of every efficient, but of &s;ome lower or in&s;tru|mental: I think, at lea&s;t, Gods efficiency is nece&s;&s;ary to be continued, for the Con|tinuation of the being of every Accident, and ordinarily &s;ome lower efficiency too.</P>
<P>As for the Logick and Metaphy&s;icks which on all occa&s;ions I &s;pill, I take the charge as unfit to be an&s;wered, as not coming from your head or heart, but from your Naturals, your &s;pleen and gal.</P>
<P>My Ignorance in compari&s;on of you, I am &s;o ea&s;ily brought to acknowledge, that I wonder you &s;hould think &s;o many words nece&s;&s;ary to evince it: (yet you &s;hould have done it in intelligible language, and not abrupt expre&s;&s;ions, defective of &s;en&s;e, almo&s;t &s;uch as <HI>Hierom</HI> de&s;cribeth in his <HI>lib. 1. cont. Jovin. initio.</HI>) But how did you prove my Ignorance or Incogitancy of <HI>Ens intentionale?</HI> Deep &s;i|lence! Becau&s;e I did not mention it, or el&s;e who knows why? By that rea&s;on I am ignorant that M^r K. is an hone&s;t man, becau&s;e I do not mention it; But by what is &s;aid, you may &s;ee its po&s;&s;ible to have heard talk of <HI>Ens intentionale,</HI> and yet to think this &s;imilitude tolerable.</P>
<P>And what if you obtain all that you contend for? <HI>viz.</HI> That the &s;imilitude is faulty! Alas, I &s;hall ea&s;ily grant it of any &s;imilitude whereby we illu&s;trate the Nature or Acts of God. Suppo&s;e then that this gla&s;s did make the &s;ame Re|pre&s;entations <HI>&s;ine receptione &s;pecierum:</HI> Or becau&s;e the&s;e <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nanimates are more remote, u&s;e the &s;imilitude of the <HI>Oeulus &V;niver&s;alis,</HI> which I mentioned even now. I am troubled that you force me to weary the poor Reader with &s;o many words on &s;o poor and unprofitable a bu&s;ine&s;s: But there's no remedy.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="27" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 27.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. <HI>NOw whereas Mr.</HI> Baxter <HI>addes, That what&s;oever &s;ome &s;ay, he doth not think, that the beholding of ten di&s;tinct colours at one view, doth make ten di&s;tinct acts of the &s;ight, or alterations on it; I do not think that ever rational man &s;aid they do, for it were &s;trange there &s;hould be but one view, and yet ten di&s;tinct acts of &s;ight; but the que&s;tion is, Whether the change of one of the&s;e objects doth not change the</HI> &s;pecies <HI>in the eye, and &s;o occa&s;ion another view or &s;ight? Or rather it is beyond all que&s;tion that they do&punc; and yet whether they do or no need not be que&s;tioned neither; the point that lies before us, is, Whether di&s;tinct or new acts do not Cau&s;e an alteration? Which is that that we have ju&s;t Cau&s;e to affirm with confidence, can have no place in God; and con&s;equently no new immanent Act; &s;o then there being nothing produced by Mr.</HI> Baxter <HI>which may &s;ug|ge&s;t a &s;u&s;pition that there may new Immanent Acts be admitted in God, or any but &s;uch as are Eternal, Come we to the</HI>&mdash;</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="27" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 27.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> YOu are minded to play with the ambiguity of the word [View] which I take for all that Reception in the eye, or activity of it which it per|formeth
<PB N="68" REF="45"> in one In&s;tant; and &s;o for that natural Act whereby I fix my eye on one place at once, &s;eeing as many things as at once I am capable of &s;eeing: You take it, it &s;eems for your intentional Action, or al&s;o the act which the vi&s;ive power performeth, as in reception of that alone. I think the &s;en&s;e I u&s;e it in, is more common. And I &s;ay again, that it is none of our que&s;tion, what light, air, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> do on the eye: for they do no more when I behold one Rock, then when I be|hold the &s;ands on the &s;hore: But the Que&s;tion is, What the objects do over and above on the eye? And whether if I &s;ee many millions of millions of &s;ands at one in&s;tant, there be &s;o many Real Actions of my eye at that in&s;tant? And whe|ther every di&s;tinct &s;and that is added or taken away, there be one Act added or ta|ken away, and &s;o a real alteration in my eye? The re&s;t which you adde is over and over an&s;wered before, and therefore being a&s;hamed that I have, &s;aid &s;o much on &s;o unprofitable a point (though con&s;trained) I &s;urcea&s;e: Onely adding this brief rehear&s;al of what is &s;aid before.</P>
<P N="1">1. Remember that we &s;peak not of tho&s;e Immanent acts who&s;e object is Eternal: but of tho&s;e that have a temporary object, as the actual exi&s;tence of things, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. The&s;e kinde of Immanent Acts may be called Tran&s;ient after a &s;ort, in that they do <HI>quoad Terminationem objectivam,</HI> pa&s;s to an extrin&s;ick object.</P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>Agere,</HI> in the &s;en&s;e now taken, when applied to God, &s;ignifieth &s;omething more then meerly <HI>E&s;se.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. The whole Generical E&s;&s;ence of Action is found in the <HI>&s;pecies</HI> of Action.</P>
<P N="5">5. <HI>Intelligere, Velle, Amare,</HI> relate to &s;ome Objects: <HI>Qui Intelligit, aliquid Intelligit: qui Amat, aliquid Amat.</HI> The&s;e terms therefore do alwayes (when af|firmed as being in God) connote their Objects.</P>
<P N="6">6. There is a nece&s;&s;ity therefore that the acts be variou&s;ly denominated from the diver&s;ity of objects. It is no way fit to &s;ay, That God doth Nill Good, or Will &s;in, or that his <HI>Velle &amp; Nolle</HI> is all one: Or that his <HI>Intelligere &amp; Velle</HI> is all one. For, as it is &s;aid, the Act connotes the Object: and therefore we are not &s;o much as to a&s;cribe the act to God when there is not an object for it; or as to an aliene Object. El&s;e we might &s;ay, <HI>Dei Intelligere &amp; Velle &s;unt idem: Deus Intelligit Peccata: Ergo Deus Vult peccata:</HI> And that God Nil|leth Good, becau&s;e he Willeth Good, &s;eeing in God <HI>Vells</HI> and <HI>Nolle</HI> are all one.</P>
<P N="7">7. This nece&s;&s;ity of various extrin&s;ecal denominations is ordinarily confe&s;&s;ed by the mo&s;t rigid Divines. I &s;hall cite one more anon.</P>
<P N="8">8. This Denomination hath <HI>fundamentum in re,</HI> or el&s;e it were delu&s;ory and abu&s;ive; the&s;e being the fitte&s;t names that mo&s;t agree to the Things (of which &s;ee <HI>Mcuri&s;s. Metaph. Scoti, li. 2. c. 3. Conclu&s;. 3. &amp;</HI> Durand. <HI>l. 1. di&s;t. 19. q. 5. &sect;. 13, 14. &amp;</HI> Aquin. <HI>de Veritate, Mater. 7. q.</HI> 1, 2, &amp;c.) Notions and Names are true or fal&s;e, as they agree or di&s;agree to the things.</P>
<P N="9">9. On the &s;ame ground as God may thus be &s;aid to Under&s;tand, Will, Nill, Love, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and the&s;e may be &s;aid to be not the &s;ame, he may al&s;o be &s;aid to have divers acts of Intellection, Willing, Nilling, and the&s;e not to be the &s;ame: <HI>e. g.</HI> That it is not all one <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">o elect <HI>Peter,</HI> and to elect <HI>John.</HI></P>
<P N="10">10. What&s;oever this diver&s;ity of names implieth, as its foundation in God, (whether a bare Relative diver&s;ity, or al&s;o a Modal, or what ever the like) it is certain that it implieth no Compo&s;ition in him, but it is onely what is con&s;i&s;tent with his &s;implicity.</P>
<P N="11">11. Some of the objects of Gods Knowledge and Love, are not from Eternity.
<PB N="69" REF="45"> The Exi&s;tence is more then the meer <HI>E&s;se Volitum,</HI> or Will that they &s;hall exi&s;t: And it is not all one to know the Thing it &s;elf in it &s;elf, and to know it in its Cau&s;e. Though God therefore did from Eternity intuitively know the <HI>E&s;se Vo|litum,</HI> and know the Creature in him&s;elf its Cau&s;e, and know its futurity, and &s;o fore&punc; know all things: yet it follows not that he intuitively knew the Creature in it &s;elf, as exi&s;ting, (Unle&s;&s;e we a&s;&s;ert the co-exi&s;tence of all things in Eternity with God.</P>
<P N="12">12. There is therefore the &s;ame rea&s;on to Denominate Gods Intellection, Love, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> as beginning and Ending with its Objects, as there is to denominate them as divers from the diver&s;ity of objects. And therefore this is a fit and ne|ce&s;&s;ary way of &s;peech. It is not fit to &s;ay, God is now Creating the world <HI>quoad actionis formalitatem,</HI> though you over-look the effect: it is not fit to &s;ay, That God now knows that the world will be Created (unle&s;&s;e you re&s;pect &s;ome new Creation) or that <HI>Abraham, Mo&s;es, David,</HI> &s;hall Die, or that Chri&s;t &s;hall ri&s;e again, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="13">13. This Denomination of Gods acts as beginning and ending, hath as much foundation in the thing, and is as true as the Denomination of his acts as vari|ous. And this may as well con&s;i&s;t with Gods Immu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ability, as the other with his Simplicity. The rea&s;on is evidently the &s;ame.</P>
<P>Now for the one, hear what others &s;ay. Schibler <HI>Met. l. 2. c. 3. Tit.</HI> 6. n. 247, 248. <HI>Qua&s;tio e&s;t de Accidentibus quae</HI> in <HI>D<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">o &s;int. Haec enim &s;olum po&s;sunt compo&s;i|tionem in Deo facere,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Unde &s;pecialiter relinquitur, quod in Deo non flat compo&s;i|tio ex &s;ubjecto &amp; accidente, &s;i maxim&egrave; ei conveniat</HI> Agere, <HI>tali actione quae praedicamen|talis dici po&s;&s;it. Nam actiones non comparantur ad agens, per modum</HI> e&s;&s;endi in, <HI>&s;ed &s;olum per modum e&s;sendi</HI> ab <HI>alio, ut infra,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Atque ita actiones tantum apprehenduntur ut egredientes ab e&s;&s;entia rei. Quod aut<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m egreditur ab e&s;&s;entia rei, hoc, eo ip&s;o, non po|te&s;t cum e&s;&s;entia facere compo&s;itionem, quae extremorum unionem requirit.</HI> And <HI>n. 97. Nam Actiones Divinae tran&s;ecuntes, non &s;unt &s;ub ectiv&egrave; in Deo, &s;ed &s;olum a Deo proce|dunt; unde nullam compo&s;itionem cum Deo faciunt,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Quanquam id etiam (verum) e&s;t de actionibus Immanentibus: Hac enim non dicuntur Immanentes po&s;itiv&egrave;, qua&s;i in agente rigide loquendo &s;ubject entur, &s;ed N<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">gativ&egrave; &s;olum, quia in externam materiam non tran&s;iunt. &V;nde ad rationem actionis &s;impliciter &amp; Immanentis &amp; tran&s;euntis, non re|quiritur e&s;&s;e</HI> in, <HI>&s;ed &s;olum e&s;&s;e</HI> ab: <HI>Idcoque neutrum facit cum agente Compo&s;itionem. Et &s;ic anima no&s;tra, &s;i incipiat intelligere aut Velle, non tamen componitur, tum ex&s;uo e&s;|&s;e &amp; Intellectione &amp; Volitione qu&agrave; tales &s;unt: &s;ed in utroque &s;tatu aeque e&s;t Anima &s;im|plex. Dixi,</HI> qu&agrave; rales &s;unt, <HI>Quia ad intellectionem pote&s;t con&s;equi aliqua compo&s;itio, &s;i &s;it per &s;peciem Intelligibilem.</HI>]</P>
<P><HI>Keckerman in Sy&s;tem. Theolog l. 1. c.</HI> 3. maintaineth, that the Per&s;ons in the Tri|nity, differ from the Divine E&s;tence, as <HI>Modus a re,</HI> and from each other as <HI>Mo|dus a Modo,</HI> and that <HI>Ens</HI> and <HI>Modus</HI> make no Compo&s;ition. Much more may it be &s;o &s;aid of Relations to things external.</P>
<P><HI>Altingius Problem. Theolog. Par. 1. pag.</HI> 55. di&s;tingui&s;heth Gods actions, 1. <HI>Sunt act us intrin&s;ici &amp;</HI> Immanentes <HI>qui non tran&s;cunt in object um externum &amp; nullum pror&s;us re&s;pectum aut <GAP DESC="foreign"> ad <GAP DESC="foreign">. Tales &s;unt act us per&s;onales quos Schola&s;tici</HI> notionales <HI>vocant, gignere, &s;pirare,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Horum ab&s;oluta e&s;t nece&s;&s;itas ab&s;que potentia ad oppo&s;itum, &amp; &s;unt aeterni. 2. Sunt actus extri<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;ici qui non &s;unt</HI> in Deo, <HI>&s;ed</HI> &agrave; Deo; <HI>five qui a Deo &s;unt</HI> effectiv&egrave;, <HI>in Creaturis autem &s;ubjectiv&egrave;: velut creare, gubernare, redimere, &amp;c. Deus enim extrin&s;ecus &s;olum ab iis denominatur. 3. Sunt Act us Intrin&s;eci qui|dem in Deo, &s;ed Connotantes re&s;pectum ac <GAP DESC="foreign"> ad extra, ut &s;cire, velle. Scit enim
<PB N="70" REF="46"> Deus non &s;olum &s;e, &s;ed etiam omnino quicquid <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;t &s;cibile, &s;ive ut po&s;&s;ibile, &s;ive ut futurum. Vult etiam non &s;olum &s;e, &s;ed etiam alia extra &s;e,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Huju&s;modi act us &s;unt Decreta, re|lativi nimirum ad extra, &amp; praeter voluntatem <GAP DESC="foreign"> &s;tatuunt rerum externarum. Com|po&s;itio autem hinc male infertur,</HI> &amp;c. Matk al&s;o, that he names the fir&s;t &s;ort onely Immanent acts.</P>
<P>And for the fitne&s;&s;e and nece&s;&s;ity of the Denominations, hear what <HI>E&s;tius</HI> con|fe&s;&s;eth <HI>in Sent. l. 1. dist. 39. &sect;. 3. De hac igitur &s;cientia Dei</HI> (viz. <HI>ad enunciabilia) quamvis &amp; ip&s;a &s;ine dubio &s;it in &s;e invariabilis, vari&egrave; tamen loqui nos oportet, prout</HI> vari|antur propo&s;itiones &s;ecundum tempora. <HI>Cum enim nullam propo&s;itionem &s;cire quis di|catur, hoc &s;ciendi modo, ni&s;i veram, eademque propo&s;iti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> propter mutationem rerum ac temporum, modo vera &s;it, modo fal&s;a; con&s;equens cris, Deum nunc &s;cire propo&s;itionem aeliquam quam po&s;t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">a ne&s;ciat, &amp; contra. Quod per &s;ingulas temporum differentias facile e&s;t declarare. Nam propo&s;itionem veram de praeterito, ut, Chri&s;tus natus e&s;t, ante bis mille annos non &s;ciebat, &s;ed Chri&s;to nato &s;cire coepit; eadem tamen nunquam &s;cire de&s;inet, &s;icut nec ullam aliam quae &s;it praeteriti temporis, quia propo&s;itio de praeterito vera, &s;emper erit vera. Quod intellige de praeterito in genere: Nam &s;i certum tempus de&s;ignet, ut Heri natus e&s;t Chri&s;tus, &s;cire eam desijt, &amp; de futur<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;impliciter, ut, Po&s;t biduum pa&s;cha &s;ict. Rur&s;um propo&s;itionem de futuro veram, ut Omnes re&s;urgemus, &s;civit quidem ab aeterno, nec fieri pote&s;t ut talem aliquando incipiat &s;cire, quia propo&s;itio de futuro vera &s;em|per fuit vera, lo <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">uendo &s;imiliter de future in genere. Sed eam aliquando &s;cire de&s;inet; nempe po&s;t re&s;urrectionem factam, quia tum vera e&s;&s;e de&s;inet ip&s;a propo&s;itio. Denique pro|po&s;itionem de prae&s;enti veram, &s;cit tanti&s;per dum ea vera manet, velut i&s;tam, Eccle&s;ia mi|litat. Ac talem incipit aliquando &s;cire, &amp; aliquando &s;cire definit; ni&s;i forte veritas pro|po&s;itionis &s;it perpetua,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Porro omnis haec loquendi varietas non inde na&s;citur, quod circa Dei &s;cientiam accidat aliqua Mutatio, &s;ed quia mutantur res &s;ubjectae. &V;nde ne|ce&s;&s;e e&s;t &amp; ip&s;as mutari propo&s;itiones,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Manife&s;tum e&s;t autem rebus mutatis non nece&s;&s;ari&ograve; &s;cientiam mutari, ne creatam quidem, ni&s;i quid aliud concurrat, velut Com|po&s;itio aut divi&s;io, aut certitudo major per experientiam rei prae&s;entis accepta. Quae in Deo locum non habent. Sicut ergo &s;cientia Medici invariata permanet dum eidem homini ob variam ejus affectionem, modo haec pharmaca, modo alia diver&s;a prae&s;cribit,</HI> &amp;c.]</P>
<P N="14">14. La&s;tly, I again de&s;ire the Reader to remember, that if I &s;eem in all this to &s;peak &s;ceptically, it is no wonder, when all that I intend is but to convince the&s;e &s;elf-conceited Learned men, that the&s;e things are indeed beyond their reach, and that they know not what they think they know: it being my own opi|nion, That Action, Intellection and Will, are but Metaphorically a&s;cribed to God, and that we cannot know what that is in propriety, which the&s;e expre&s;&s;i|ons do &s;hadow out in God. <HI>Tho. White</HI> &s;aith; <HI>Institut. Sacrar. li. 2. Lect.</HI> 1. pag. 136, 137. <HI>Quare dicimus ab&s;trabendo a no&s;tris conceptibus, e&s;se Deum unam &s;implicitatem &s;implici&s;&s;imam, quae neque &s;it Deus, neque ens, neque aliud formaliter quod nos cogitare po&s;&s;imus; &s;ed no&s;tras cogitationes eam inad equate reprae&s;entare; non qua&s;i accipientes ali|quod unum ex pluribus q<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ae ibi actu &s;int, &s;ed accipiendo participationes qua&s;dam inferiores eo quod ip&s;e e&s;t, &amp; di&s;&s;imiliores quam &s;alvia vel pediculus e&s;t respectu hominis.</HI> Whe|ther this hold or not of the notions, <HI>Deus &amp; Ens,</HI> I doubt not but it holds of Intellection and Volition: or at lea&s;t that we men are uncertain what the&s;e are in God. And the &s;trange confidence of men in this, that they know that which no man knows indeed, hath made them unreverently vent their conceits, and fill the Church with perplexing co<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">trover&s;ies about things that none can determine. As M^r <HI>Burge&s;s</HI> &s;aith of Ju&s;tific. Lect. 20. [Only you mu&s;t take notice that we are
<PB N="71" REF="46"> in meer darkne&s;s, and not able to comprehend how God is &s;aid to act or work, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Therefore it is a &s;ure truth, <HI>De Deo etiam vera dicere periculo&s;um e&s;t, &amp; tunc dign&egrave; Deum ae&s;timamus, cum inae&s;timabilem dicimus;</HI> then do we rightly e&s;teem of him, when we Judge him above our thoughts or e&s;teem.] <HI>Matth. Paris</HI> &s;peaking of the Dominicans teaching, which cau&s;ed that great di&s;&s;ention and confu&s;ion in the Univer&s;ity of <HI>Paris,</HI> writes thus (<HI>ad annum Dom.</HI> 1243. as he is cited by the Prefacer to <HI>Guiliel. de Sancto Amore) Incipiebant di&s;putare &amp; di&s;&s;erere &s;ubtilius &amp; cel&s;ius quam decuit aut expedivit: Qui non verentes tangere montes a gloria Dei oppri|mendi nitebantur &s;ecreta Dei inve&s;tigabilia temere per&s;crutari, &amp; Judicia Dei quae &s;unt aby&s;&s;us multa, nimis prae&s;umptuos&egrave; indagare. Deo enim plus placet firmae fidei &s;implicitas, quam nimis tran&s;cendens in Theologi&acirc; &s;ubtilitas.</HI>] Dr. <HI>Twi&s;s Vindic Grat. l. 2. Crim. 3. &sect;. 15. Sed quid fiet &s;i haec humana ratio non ferat? An nihil <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">re|dendum nobis in<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">um<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 span"> ni&s;i quod quomodo fiat, humana ratione ex|plicare</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">See M^r <HI>K</HI>'s own conf<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;&s;ion, how little we can con|ceive or expre&s;s of God, in the end of his Epi&s;t. Dedicat.</NOTE> <HI>po&s;&s;it? My&s;teriun hoc for&s;itan adorand<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m potius quam &s;cru|tandum,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Et li. 2. Crim.</HI> 3. &sect; <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">0. pag. (<HI>mih<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">) 405. E<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">iam non erube&s;co fateri, licet nunquam dub<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">trem de &s;ancta Dei natura, tanquam de omni &s;celeris reatu alien<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;&s;ima, hoc tamen diu me &s;u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">pen|&s;um tenui&s;&s;e (forte etiam hodie non paucos &s;uspen&s;os tene<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">) quaenam &s;cilicet &s;it illa vera ratio, qui modus operationis Divinae quo &s;iat ut &s;e in omni actione tanquam Cau&s;a efficaci&s;&s;ima immi&s;ceat, extra tamen omnem vitii contagionem, citra ju&s;tam culpae &s;u&s;picionem: Et an hodie per omnia &s;atis explicatum habeamus, Deus novit,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Significat etiam</HI> Calvinus, <HI>multis hunc nodum vi&s;um e&s;&s;e inexplicabilem,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Hoc modo tutius con&s;ulendum cen&s;uit no&s;trae pietati, &s;i fa|teamur hehitudinem &s;en&s;us no&s;tri my &s;terium hoc non capere.</HI>] And why &s;hould not the &s;ame Confe&s;&s;ion extend to the pre&s;ent ca&s;e al&s;o? Though we do not u&s;e to con|fe&s;s our Ignorance till we are utterly at a lo&s;s (and then we &s;ay as <HI>Cajetan</HI> when he was &s;tall'd, It doth not <HI>quietare intellectum</HI>) yet we have oft as great cau&s;e to con|fe&s;s it where we are confident &s;ometimes; as perhaps <HI>Ariba</HI> that blames <HI>Cajetan</HI> for his Confe&s;&s;ion of Ignorance, might know as little as <HI>Alvarez</HI> that commends it for a mo&s;t holy and pious &s;peech.</P>
<P>I had thought to have &s;aid no more to this point, but find|ing a mo&s;t Learned, <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>I know Mr.</HI> Ru|therford <HI>hath &s;ome jarring with him; and I do not under|take to ju&s;tifie all that any man hath &s;aid, when I call them Orthodox; but I confe&s;s I think that for &s;olidity in the controverted points that they meddle with,</HI> Davenant, Camero <HI>and</HI> Baronius <HI>are the glory of</HI> B<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">itain, <HI>as hav<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ng happily hit on that mean, which many others have mi&s;t of, which I would not have under&s;tood as di&s;paraging any others: for even in this, they have many excellent Companions, and others have their excellencies, that were not in this &s;o happy as they. Our Renowned B.</HI> U&s;her, <HI>D</HI> Pre&s;ton, <HI>D.</HI> Field, <HI>and many another famous light in</HI> England, <HI>have not only de&s;erved the honour of eminent Learning and Piety, but even in this judicious Di&s;covery of the truth, between the extreams which others have run into, they have helped to reduce the violent to Moderation, and to &s;hew men a &s;urer way to overcome the adver&s;ary, then their di&s;advantagious extreams.</HI></NOTE> Orthodox, Judicious Divine <HI>Robert Baronius</HI> (Camero <HI>&s;ecundus, vel</HI> Cameroni <HI>&s;ecundus</HI>) to &s;peak &s;o fully in this point, in his excellent Treati&s;e <HI>de Peccato Mor|tali &amp; Veniali,</HI> I have adventured to tran&s;cribe the whole Cha|pter, it being not long, both that the Reader may &s;ee the Rea|&s;ons of the like pa&s;&s;ages in my fore-going Replies more clearly, and that Mr. <HI>K.</HI> may be yet better &s;atisfied that I am not &s;o &s;in|gular in the&s;e things, as he &s;eems to think me.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<PB N="72" REF="47">
<HEAD>Di&s;p. Parte 1^a &s;ect. 6. Deum Po&s;&s;e eos amare quos prius odit, &amp; odi&s;&s;e eos quos prius amavit, ab&s;&abque; ulla vel phy&s;ica, vel morali voluntatis &s;uae mutatione, obiter Declaratur.</HEAD>
<P><HI>EX doctrina praecedenti &s;ectione tradita de ju&s;tificatorum ad certum tempus exclu|&s;ione ab eo favoris Divini gradu, quo priu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> diligebantur, nequaquam &s;equitur De|um, aut voluntatem Dei in &s;e mutabilem e&s;&s;e, &s;ive loquamur de mutabilitate phy&s;ica, &s;ive de mutabilitate morali.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Nam quod ad divinum amorem executionis attinet, Deum non amare ju&s;tificatos peccati mortalis reatu involutos amore executionis, nihil aliud e&s;t, quam eum non con|ferre in illos ea bonae &s;piritualia, &s;eu media &s;alutis, quae prius in eos conferebat nulla igitur e&s;t hic mutatio quoad actus immanentes, qui in ip&s;o Deo exi&s;tunt, &s;ed tantum quoad actus tran&s;euntes, qui &s;unt extra Deum &amp; in hominibus recipiuntur, &amp; pro|inde iis mutatis non mutatur Deus, &s;ed illi in quibus hi actus, &amp; eorum effecta reci|piuntur. Dicet aliquis: Deus non &s;ol&ugrave;m non confert illa beneficia in eos, &s;ed etiam durante eo &s;tatu non vult ea conferre: prius autem voluit ea conferre: &amp; proinde mutatus e&s;t. Re&s;p. Voluit prius illa beneficia communicare iis exi&s;tentibus in alio &s;tatu. Sed iis exi&s;tentibus in hoc &s;tatu impietatis, &amp; impaenitentiae, ne&abque; jam vult, ne&abque; unquam voluit, imo ab aeterno noluit haec beneficia communicare. Quam vis igi|tur durante hoc &s;tatu benevolentia Dei qua&s;i ligata &amp; impedita &s;it; ut &s;upra monai, hinc tam<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n non &s;equitur eam in &s;e mutatam e&s;&s;e: &s;ed tantum mutatum e&s;&s;e ejus ob|jectum, quia</HI> viz. <HI>objectum ejus, hoc e&s;t, homines electi, prius erant capaces i&s;torum beneficiorum nunc vero eorum capaces non &s;unt.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>Major &amp; gravior difficultas e&s;t de amore complacentiae, &amp; odio di&s;plicentiae ei oppo&s;ito. Cum enim hi actus &s;int immanentes, hoc e&s;t, in ip&s;o Deo exi&s;tentes, iis mutatis videtur ip&s;e Deus in &s;e mutari. Re&s;ponderi &s;olet primo, non mutari hos actus realiter, &amp; a parte rei; quia uter&abque; hic act<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s in Deo fuit ab aeterno, &amp; in aeternum in eo durabit, cum re&s;pectu ad diver&s;os i&s;tius hominis &s;tatus, quorum alter alteri in tempore fucce&s;&s;it. Ita respondet</HI> Fon&s;eca <HI>tom. 3. Metaph. lib. 7. cap. 8. quae&s;t. 5. &s;ect. 7. Quod &s;i (inquit) quis objiciat eundem po&s;&s;e prius odio haberi a Deo, &s;i &s;it in|ju&s;tus, po&s;tea ver&ograve; diligi, &s;i &s;it ju&s;tus, &amp; vice ver&s;a, &s;ine ulla divinae voluntatis mu|tatione, ergo nihil repugnare quo minus divina voluntas nullo modo mutata tran&s;eat a nolitione in volitionem rei eju&s;dem, ex dict is patet &s;olutio. Deus enim non eundem odio habet, ac diligit pro eodem tempore, &s;ed pro diver&s;is. Adde, quod et&s;i in eodem homine ju&s;titia &s;uccedit peccato, aut peccatum ju&s;titiae, tamen odio, quo Deus illum pro&s;equitur ut peccatorem, non &s;uccedit amor, quo illum diligit ut ju&s;tum, aut contra; &s;ed uter&abque; affectus divinus aeternus e&s;t re&s;piciens diver&s;es hominis &s;tatus, quorum alter alteri &s;uccedit in tempore.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. <HI>Secund&ograve; re&s;pondeo: quaemvis concederemus e&s;&s;e aliquam mutationem &amp; &s;ucce&s;|&s;ionem in actibus immanentibus amoris &amp; odii divini formaliter con&s;ideratis, quate|nus per rationem di&s;tinguuntur ab e&s;&s;entia divina &amp; inter &s;e, hoc e&s;t, quamvis dice|remus actum amoris complacentiae ergo electum in hoc ca&s;u non amplius e&s;se in Deo, ei&abque; &s;uccedere actum odii di&s;plicentiae, non tamen inde &s;equeretur e&s;&s;e mutationem ali|quam realem in ip&s;o Deo. Nam actus Dei liberi nihil &s;uperaddunt voluntati aut e&s;&s;entiae divinae, praeter re&s;pectum &s;eu relationem rationis, aut extrin&s;ecam aliquam connotationem, quae tamen ad realem eorum entitatem non pertinent: nam tota eorum entitas realis e&s;t ip&s;a Dei e&s;&s;entia, nihil&abque; intrin&s;ec&egrave; includunt praeter eam. Quamvis
<PB N="73" REF="47"> igitur Deus de&s;ineret amare eos quos prius amabat, non mutaretur mutatione reali, quia nihil reale amitteret&punc; &s;i&abque; inciperet eos amare quos prius odit, non mutaretur, quia nihil reale ei accederet, mutatio autem realis non fit, &s;ine aliqua additione aut a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">la|tione real<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.</HI></P>
<P N="5">5. <HI>Non nece&s;se e&s;t ut hic probem actus illos nullam realem entitatem (&s;ive ea vo|cetur perfectio, &s;ive exten&s;io actus divini ad objecta) &s;uperaddere e&s;&s;entiae divinae. Nam Evangelici omnes hoc unanimiter tenent: &amp; quod ad Pontificios attinet, quam vis</HI> Cajetanus <HI>in</HI> 1^<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">^m <HI>partem Thomae quae&s;t. 19. art. 2 &amp;</HI> 3 Fon&s;eca <HI>tom. 3. Metaph. lib. 7. cap. 8. quae&s;t. 5. &s;ect. 4. &amp;</HI> Salas 1a. 2ae <HI>quae&s;t. 6. art. 3. tract 3 di&s;p. 3. &s;ect 8. doceant actus liberos Dei, &s;eu decreta ejus, &s;uperaddere e&s;&s;entiae divinae rea|lem quandam entitatem, quae ab aeterno potuit non e&s;&s;e in Deo, quae&abque; revera in eo non fui&s;&s;et, &s;i ab aeterno aliter decrevi&s;&s;et, &amp; hos actus non babui&s;&s;et, major tamen &amp; melior eorum pars in contraria e&s;t &s;ententia viz.</HI> Suarez. <HI>tom. 2. Metaph. disp. 30. &s;ect. 9. &amp;</HI> Va<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">quez. <HI>in</HI> 1^<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">^m <HI>partem Thomae, disput: 80. cap. 1. &amp;</HI> 2. Valent. <HI>tom. 1. disput. 1. quae&s;t. 19. punct.</HI> 4. Arrubal <HI>in primam partem Thomae, disput 54 cap. 2. &amp; &s;e &s;equentibus.</HI> Becanus <HI>in &s;umma, Parte 1. Tract. 1. cap. 11. quae&s;t.</HI> 4. Trigo&s;us <HI>in &s;umma Theologica</HI> Bonaventurae <HI>quae&s;t. 13. art. 2. dub 3. conclu&s;.</HI> 1. Franci&s;cus Cumel <HI>variarum di&s;put tom. 1. in disp de prae&s;cientia Dei dub. 3 p.</HI> 57, &amp;c. <HI>Horum &s;en|tentia proculdubio e&s;t vertor illa altera, quia &s;i in Deo e&s;t realis aliqua entitas, quae ab aeterno potuit in eo non e&s;&s;e, at&abque; adeo potuit non omnino e&s;&s;e, &s;eu e&s;&s;e merum nihil, nece&s;&s;ari&ograve; &s;equitur aliquid e&s;&s;e in Deo quod non e&s;t Deus.</HI></P>
<P N="6">6. <HI>Dicet aliquis: &s;i mutatis actibus liberis Deus realiter non mutatur, poterit &s;alva &s;ua immutabilitate, mutare decreta &s;ua de rebus futuris, &amp; proinde poterit incipere velle quod nunquam antea voluit, vel de&s;inere velle quod prius voluit. Nam talis mutatio decretorum divinorum fit &s;ine aliqua additione, aut ablatione reali. Re&s;p. Duplicem e&s;se mutationem,</HI> viz. <HI>Phy&s;icam &amp; Moralem. Phy&s;ica, &s;eu realis mu|tatio fit per additionem, aut ablationem alicujus entitatis realis. Moralis mutatio e&s;t propo&s;iti &amp; voluntatis, aut etiam cognitionis &amp; &s;cientiae mutatio; ut &s;i quis quod antea putabat verum, deinde fal&s;um judicet; &amp; quod antea facere decreverat po&s;tea nolit, quod &s;ane magnam imperfectionem in eo qui &s;ic mutatur arguit&punc; Vide</HI> Va&s;que|zium <HI>in</HI> 1^<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">^m <HI>partem Thomae &s;uper quae&s;t. 9. art. 4. Cum igitur Deus dicitur ab&s;olute immutabilis id non minus intelligitur de morali quam de Phy&s;ica immutabilitate, nam mutatio propo&s;iti &amp; con&s;ilii quae moralis vocatur, arguit incon&s;tantiam, impru|dentiam, &amp; cognitionis imperfectionem, quae non minus &s;ummae &amp; ab&s;olutae Dei per|fectioni repugnant, quam Phy&s;ica, &s;eu realis mutatio, ut bene ob&s;ervat</HI> Suar<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">z. <HI>tom. 2. Metaph disp. 30. &s;ect. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. num.</HI> 58.</P>
<P N="7">7 <HI>Ex his patet Deum, cum odio displicentiae pro&s;equitur electum, quem prius amabat amore complacentiae, non mutari; quam vis forta&s;&s;e nunc minim&egrave; &s;it in eo actus complacentiae, con&s;ideratus ut re&s;pectum rationis ad tale objectum divinae e&s;&s;entiae &s;uperaddit: Prim&ograve; enim ablato tali actu, Deus phy&s;ic&egrave; &amp; realiter non mutatur, quia nihil ei decedit praeter merum respectum rationis ut irrefragabilibus argumentis demon&s;trant Suarez. &amp; Va&s;quez, locis citatis, Secund&ograve;, neque mutatur moraliter, quia non mutat propo&s;itum, &s;ed contra, permanet in &s;uo propo&s;ito, aut potius in naturali &s;ua inclinatione, quo ab aeterno fuit, nunc e&s;t, &amp; &s;emper erit, propenfus ad a mandam virtutem, &amp; ad dete&s;tanda vitia, &s;eu peccata. Permanet etiam in &s;uo propo&s;ito perducendi eos quos elegit &amp; ju&s;tificavit ad aeternam gloriam, nam &s;olidum &s;tat Dei fundamentum, habens &s;igillum hoc, Novit Dominus eos qui &s;unt &s;ui,</HI> 2 Tim. 2. 19.</P>
<PB N="74" REF="48">
<P>Mark here that the rea&s;on which <HI>Baronius, Burger&s;dicius</HI> and others give again&s;t Gods change of his Decrees, <HI>viz.</HI> he &s;hould be morally mutable, holds not of the immanent acts which pre&s;uppo&s;e their objects, and who&s;e objects are really mu|table: as <HI>Baronius</HI> here manife&s;teth. It is certain that things are &s;ometime future, &s;ometime pre&s;ent or exi&s;tent, and &s;ometime pa&s;t: and that they are &s;o is of God, but without moral mutation: therefore his Knowing them &s;o, and his Willing and Approving them &s;o, is without moral mutation too. So the &s;ame man is good or holy to day that was bad and unholy ye&s;terday: therefore God may love him to day with complacency and approbation, whom he di&s;liked before; and may know him to be as he is, which before he did not, becau&s;e he was not as he is. 2. Note the rea&s;on why God cannot change his Decrees: Both becau&s;e they do effect or produce their own objects (as commonly called) viz. <HI>Rerum futuriti|onem,</HI> when as Gods Approbation, his Knowledge <HI>purae vi&s;ionis,</HI> his Complacency, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> do pre&s;uppo&s;e their objects. 2. And it would be a contradiction for the &s;ame event, to be future and not future, <HI>e. g.</HI> mans &s;alvation: therefore if God ab&s;olutely Decree that <HI>Peter</HI> &s;hall be &s;aved, and after Decree the contrary, the fir&s;t Decree mu&s;t be changed cau&s;le&s;ly, and for want of power not be executed; and al&s;o as it is <HI>verbum mentis,</HI> it mu&s;t be fal&s;e: which cannot be.</P>
<P>I Had thought to have &s;aid nothing of particular Scriptures that &s;peak of Gods acts which we call Immanent as Beginning or Ending, becau&s;e they are &s;o commonly known: But le&s;t any &s;hould think I &s;light Scripture Argument, which I principally e&s;teem, or le&s;t they take it for granted that there is none &s;uch, becau&s;e none are produced, I will adde &s;ome texts in confirmation of the <HI>minor</HI> of this fol|lowing Argument.</P>
<P>If God him&s;elf in his Word do ordinarily &s;peak of his own Acts, which we call Immanent, as Beginning or Ending, then is it not unfit for us to do &s;o to. (God knows be&s;t how to expre&s;s his own Acts.)</P>
<P>But God him&s;elf in his Word doth ordinarily &s;peak of his own Acts, which we call Immanent, as Beginning or Ending:</P>
<P>Therefore.</P>
<P>Luk. 2. 52. <HI>Je&s;us increa&s;ed in favour with God and man.</HI>] Gods [favouring] Chri&s;t is an Immanent act: and yet Chri&s;t increa&s;ed in Gods favour: Increa&s;e &s;ignifieth mutation, by an inception of further degrees.</P>
<P>Rom. 9. 25. <HI>I will call them my People which were not my people, and her Beloved which was not beloved.</HI>] Love is an Immanent act.</P>
<P>Joh. 16. 27. <HI>The Father him&s;elf loveth you, becau&s;e ye have loved me and beleeved,</HI> &amp;c.] Therefore it was when they beleeved and loved Chri&s;t, that the Father in this &s;en&s;e began to love them.</P>
<P>Joh. 14. 21, 23. <HI>He that loveth me &s;hall be loved of my Father, and I will love him,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>And my Father will love him, and we will come unto him,</HI> &amp;c.]</P>
<P>Pro. 8. 17. <HI>I love them that love me,</HI> &amp;c.] Therefore with this &s;ame love, they were not before beloved, though with another &s;ort of love they were.</P>
<P>Joh. 10. 17. <HI>Therefore doth the Father love me, becau&s;e I lay down my life,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Ho&s;. 11. 1. <HI>When I&s;rael was a childe then I loved him.</HI></P>
<PB N="75" REF="48">
<P>Deut. 7. 12, 13. <HI>If ye hearken,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>the Lord thy God will keep unto thee the Covenant,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>And he will love thee,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Ho&s;. 9. 15. <HI>I will love them no more: All their Princes are revolters.</HI></P>
<P>P&s;al. 5. 5. <HI>Thou hate&s;t all the workers of iniquity.</HI>] Such are the Elect before con|ver&s;ion.</P>
<P>Gen. 4. 7. <HI>If thou do well &s;halt thou not be Accepted,</HI> &amp;c?</P>
<P>So all tho&s;e texts that &s;peak of Gods being reconciled, which properly &s;ignifies an Immanent act.</P>
<P>Act. 10. 35. <HI>He that feareth God and worketh righteou&s;ne&s;s is Accepted of him.</HI></P>
<P>Mat. 3. 17. <HI>This is my Beloved Son in whom I am well plea&s;ed.</HI></P>
<P>Heb. 13. 16. <HI>With &s;uch &s;acrifice God is well plea&s;ed.</HI></P>
<P>Heb. 11. 5. <HI>He had this te&s;timony that he plea&s;ed God.</HI></P>
<P>1 King. 3. 10. <HI>And the speech plea&s;ed the Lord that Solomon asked,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Heb. 11. 6. <HI>Without faith it is impo&s;&s;ible to plea&s;e God.</HI></P>
<P>1 The&s;&s;. 4. 1. <HI>How ye ought to walk and plea&s;e God.</HI></P>
<P>1 Cor. 7. 32. <HI>He that is unmarried careth,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>how he may plea&s;e the Lord.</HI></P>
<P>Rom. 8. 8. <HI>They that are in the fle&s;h cannot plea&s;e God.</HI></P>
<P>Prov. 15. 8. <HI>The prayer of the upright is his delight.</HI></P>
<P>2 Sam. 15. 26. <HI>If he thus &s;ay, I have no delight in thee,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Jer. 9. 24. <HI>For in the&s;e things do I delight &s;aith the Lord.</HI></P>
<P>Zeph. 3. 17. <HI>He will rejoyce over thee with joy, he will re&s;t in his love; he will joy over thee,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Deut. 28. 63. <HI>And it &s;hall come to pa&s;&s;e, as the Lord rejoyced over you to do you good,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>&s;o the Lord will rejoyce over you to de&s;troy you,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Deut. 30. 9. <HI>For the Lord will again rejoyce over thee for good.</HI></P>
<P>P&s;al. 104. 31. <HI>The Lord &s;hall rejoyce in his works.</HI></P>
<P>I&s;a. 62. 5. <HI>As the bridegroom Rejoyceth over the bride, &s;o &s;hall thy God Rejoyce over thee.</HI></P>
<P>2 Tim. 2. 15. <HI>Study to &s;hew thy &s;elf approved unto God.</HI></P>
<P>Deut. 32. 19. <HI>When the Lord &s;aw it, he abhorred them.</HI></P>
<P>Gen. 1. 4, 10, 13, 31. <HI>God &s;aw the light that it was good.</HI></P>
<P>Ifa. 59. 15, 16. <HI>And the Lord &s;aw it, and it displea&s;ed him that there was no judge|ment: And he &s;aw that there was no man, and wondred,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Gen. 29. 31. <HI>When the Lord &s;aw that Leah was hated, he,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Jer. 26. 2, 3. <HI>Dimini&s;h not a word. If &s;o be they will hearken and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpo&s;e to do unto them, becau&s;e of the evil of their doings.</HI></P>
<P>Jer. 36. 3. <HI>It may be the hou&s;e of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpo&s;e to do unto them, that they may return every man from his evil way, that I may for|give,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Gen. 6. 6. <HI>It repented the Lord that he had made man.</HI>] So the 7^t^h ver&s;e.</P>
<P>Exod. 32. 14. <HI>And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.</HI></P>
<P>1 Sam. 15. 35. <HI>The Lord Repented he had made Saul King</HI>] So the eleventh ver&s;e.</P>
<P>2 Sam. 24. 16. <HI>The Lord Repented him of the evil, and &s;aid to the Angel,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>P&s;al. 106. 46. <HI>He remembred for them his Covenant, and Repented according to the multitude of his mercies.</HI></P>
<P>Jer. 26. 19. <HI>And the Lord Repented him of the evil,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<PB N="76" REF="49">
<P>Amos 7. 3. <HI>The Lord Repented for this: It &s;hall not be &s;aith the Lord.</HI>] So ver&s;e 6.</P>
<P>Jonah 4. 2. <HI>I knew that thou art a gracious God, and mercifull, &s;low to anger and of great kindne&s;s, and Repente&s;t thee of the evil.</HI></P>
<P>Jon. 3. 10. <HI>And God &s;aw their works that they turned from their evil way, and God Repented of the evil that he had &s;aid he would do unto them, and did it not.</HI></P>
<P>Jo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">l 2. 13. <HI>He is gracious,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>&s;low to anger, and Repenteth him of the evil.</HI></P>
<P>Jer. 15. 6. <HI>I am weary with Repenting.</HI></P>
<P>Ho&s;. 11. 8. <HI>My heart is turned within me: my repentings are kindled together.</HI></P>
<P>P&s;al. 30. 5. <HI>For his Anger endureth but for a moment.</HI></P>
<P>P&s;al. 103. 8, 9. <HI>The Lord is mercifull and gracious, &s;low to Anger,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Neither will he keep his Anger for ever.</HI></P>
<P>I&s;a. 63. 10. <HI>Therefore he was Turned to be their enemy,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>P&s;al. 85. 3. <HI>Thou ha&s;t taken away all thy wrath, thou ha&s;t turned thy &s;elf from the fierce|ne&s;&s;e of thy anger.</HI></P>
<P>2 Chron. 12. 12. <HI>And when he humbled him&s;elf the wrath of the Lord turned from him that he would not de&s;troy him.</HI></P>
<P>Jo&s;h. 7. 26. <HI>So the Lord turned from the fiercene&s;s of his wrath.</HI></P>
<P>So 2 Chron. 29. 10. &amp; 30. 8, 9. &amp; P&s;al. 106. 23. Jer. 18. 20. and &s;o frequently.</P>
<P>Al&s;o very many places that mention the kindling or ari&s;ing of Gods wrath.</P>
<P>P&s;al. 78. 38. <HI>Many a time turned he his anger away and did not &s;tirre up all his wrath.</HI></P>
<P>Prov. 24. 18. <HI>Le&s;t the Lord &s;ee it, and it displea&s;e him, and turn away his wrath <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">om him.</HI> There are three &s;everal immanent acts mentioned together.</P>
<P>So all tho&s;e Texts where Remembring and Forgetting are &s;poken of God,</P>
<P>So many more Texts that mention Gods being di&s;plea&s;ed, <HI>Gen. 38. 10. Num. 11. 1. 1 Chron. 21. 7. P&s;. 60. 1. Zech.</HI> 1. 2. 15.</P>
<P>So many Texts that &s;peak of Gods <HI>&s;eeing,</HI> as <HI>Gen</HI> 18. 21, &amp;c.</P>
<P>P&s;al. 34. 17. <HI>The righteous cry and the Lord heareth and delivereth,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>P&s;al. 69. 33. <HI>For the Lord heareth the poor and de&s;pi&s;eth not his pri&s;oners.</HI></P>
<P>With many more places that &s;peak of Gods Hearing and Hearkening.</P>
<P>So many Texts that mention his Regarding, and his Con&s;idering, and Pon|dering.</P>
<P>And many that mention his Abhorring, and his de&s;pi&s;ing.</P>
<P>And many Texts that &s;peak of Gods Pity and Compa&s;&s;ion to the mi&s;erable.</P>
<P>And many that &s;peak of his Favour as beginning or ending, and mans finding favour in his eyes.</P>
<P>And many that &s;peak of his Grace when it &s;ignifieth favour, and is expre&s;&s;ed as beginning or changing. With many more to the &s;ame purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>Judg. 10. 13. 16. <HI>Ye have for&s;aken me and &s;erved other Gods; Wherefore I will de|liver you no more.</HI> Ver&s;. 16. <HI>They put away the &s;trange Gods and &s;erved the Lord, and his &s;oul was grieved for the mi&s;ery of I&s;rael,</HI> &amp;c.] And he did deliver them by <HI>Jephtah.</HI> Yet here God &s;eemeth to revoke a peremptory &s;entence.</P>
<P>If any &s;hall &s;ay, that all the&s;e later are but figurative &s;peeches applied to God from the manner of men: I as ea&s;ily grant it as any man: But withall remember the&s;e two things. 1. That I &s;uppo&s;e it is as true of Gods Knowing and Willing, his Electing, Decreeing, Purpo&s;ing, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> only differing in the degree of impro|priety: Till the contrary be better proved then I have &s;een it, I think this will be
<PB N="77" REF="49"> my opinion. 2. It is onely the fitne&s;&s;e or unfitne&s;&s;e of the&s;e wayes of &s;peech concerning God, tha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> I am now enqui<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ing into; and not of the propriety. If it be the Scripture-way &s;o ordinarily to &s;peak of Gods Immanent acts as New, as Beginning or Cea&s;ing, then is it not unlawfull or unfit for us &s;o to &s;peak, in imi|tation of the holy Gho&s;t: &s;till acknowledging the unavoidable Impropriety of our expre&s;&s;ions, and the Incomprehen&s;iblene&s;s of that in God, which by &s;uch ex|pre&s;&s;ions is hinted out unto us.</P>
<P>I remember what <HI>Zanchius</HI> &s;aith <HI>in Epi&s;t.</HI> Joh. Cratoni, in the third Vol. of his Works, pag. (<HI>mihi) 135. Quod ais, Precibus moveri Deum <GAP DESC="foreign"> e&s;t, quam &s;i tollamus &egrave; Scripturis, quae impietates &amp; quot pugnantia non &egrave; Scripturis col|ligentur?</HI></P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<HEAD>The Second Point.</HEAD>
<DIV2 N="28" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 28.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. Second; <HI>THat there is &s;omewhat like to Ju&s;tification in the Eternal Decrees of God to Ju&s;tifie men.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="28" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 28.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> IF this al&s;o be intended again&s;t me, then, Whether this Learned man did not want work, when he undertook this, I leave the indifferent Rea|der to judge. The former Que&s;tion which he propounded to di&s;pute, he knew and confe&s;&s;ed that I denied not: (Yet he hath forced me to &s;pend many words on it, and to &s;ay more then I thought to have done.) This which he makes his &s;e|cond Labour, he will not &s;ay that I was ever his adver&s;ary in; or that ever I de|bated the Propo&s;ition, much le&s;s denied it: And yet all this &s;eems intended again&s;t me, and by name anon he brings me in. If this man had not &s;omewhat <HI>ab ho|mine</HI> more forcible then any thing in the matter di&s;puted, which in&s;tigated his pugnacious &s;oul to this conflict, then mu&s;t I confe&s;s my &s;elf quite mi&s;taken in the Motives of his undertaking. The former part of his Di&s;pute hath convinced me of this. I remember we had &s;uch &s;parks among us when I was a School-hoy, that were wont (for maintaining the reputation of their valour) to appoint fight|ing matches, and to the field they mu&s;t go, before ever they thought what &s;hould be the matter of quarrel, and when they came to the place, they mu&s;t be dared by a third, to &s;pit in anothers face to make the quarrel; and he that refu|&s;ed was the Coward, and he that &s;pit fir&s;t, and &s;truck fir&s;t, had the fir&s;t glory, though &s;ometime not the la&s;t.</P>
<P>What I &s;hould do with all the&s;e following words of Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s that concern me not, I do not well know. I hope none will expect that I &s;hould engage my &s;elf again&s;t him to prove, that [there is nothing like to Ju&s;tification in the Eternal Decrees of God to Ju&s;tifie] nor that I &s;hould an&s;wer to all that he brings to prove
<PB N="78" REF="50"> it! Yet becau&s;e I take his Di&s;cour&s;e to be very feeble, and to &s;mall purpo&s;e, I &s;hall take a brief notice of it in the way, whether it were intended again&s;t me Di|rectly, or but Colla<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">erally.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="29" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 29.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. K. <HI>ANd I make it good, not from this, that by rea&s;on of this Decree, God i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;aid to have Ju&s;tified whom he prede&s;tinated,</HI> Rom. 8. <HI>For indeed he is &s;aid to have glorified them al&s;o; though glorifying of many of them be not till the end of the world, yea that full glorifying of none of them be till then, and the Decree to glorifie all whom he will glorifie at the end of the world, was before the beginning of the world: and yet this expre&s;&s;ion &s;hews the Certainty of their Ju&s;tification and Glorifying, who are pre|de&s;tinated; the Preter ten&s;e being u&s;ed only to expre&s;s the Certainty of the future. But this I will not in&s;i&s;t on; but run another cour&s;e, and that is this: Ju&s;tification is by the Con&s;ent of all men (I mean Prote&s;tants) a Remi&s;&s;ion of our &s;ins, and Accepting of u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> as Righteous: Now this is either a meer immanent; or a meer tran&s;ient Act, or both. I know no man will &s;ay it is a meer tran&s;ient Act: there being no tran&s;ient Act of God which doth not &s;uppo&s;e an Immanent one; for that he acts nothing upon the Creature, but what he first purpo&s;ed in him&s;elf to act: &s;o then an Immanent act there mu&s;t be confe&s;t, if there be a tran&s;ient one; and a tran&s;ient one I &s;hall acknowledge as well as an Imma|nent, and what it is will enquire by and by: But fir&s;t I contend th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t immanent Act there can be no other then the Decree of God to pa&s;s this tran&s;ient Act, and that this Decree of God to pa&s;s the tran&s;ient Act of Ju&s;tifying, carries in it as much as concerns Gods Re|mi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins, and Acceptance of us as Righteous; and therefore hath much in it like to Ju&s;tification; and may be &s;tiled &s;o without Bla&s;phemy, as Mr.</HI> Goodwin <HI>is plea&s;ed to brand it in his Rhetorick. And that this Decree to Ju&s;tifie us, carries as much as con|cerns Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins, and accepting of us as righteous, I prove thus: If it do not, then the Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins, and Accepting of us as Righteous, are other immanent Acts. But that cannot be, for then, either in the &V;nder&s;tanding or Will: but neither can be &s;aid with &s;obriety, for &s;ure God cannot be &s;aid to Decree to know any thing, or to decree to Will any thing: not to know any thing: for though he know things in his Decree, yet doth he not decree to know, his Knowledge being nece&s;&s;ary, his Decree arbitrary: and if he did decree to know any thing, we mu&s;t conclude he might have not known it; for decrees are only of things which may be or not be: Therefore what&s;oever it be, it is no &s;uch di&s;tinct immanent Act in Gods &V;nder&s;tanding; and though we u&s;e to &s;ay,</HI> Now a man is Ju&s;ti|fied in Gods &s;ight, <HI>yet doth not this put any new Act of Knowledge in God, but &s;igni|fies only a Testimony given by God, whereby he makes us know that we are Ju&s;tified be|fore God, or in his &s;ight; and I am &s;ure that Mr.</HI> Baxter, <HI>who quoteth</HI> Suarez, Schib|ler <HI>and</HI> Keckerman <HI>at every bout, cannot be ignorant that the word of fight, though it be for the form Active, is for the &s;ub&s;tance of it rather Pa&s;&s;ive, and therefore is not attribu|table to God as it is to us; but in him it &s;ignifies a making of us to &s;ee, and we are &s;aid to be Justified in his &s;ight, when he makes it as it were evident to our &s;ight that we are Ju&s;tified: as when God is &s;aid to know what was in</HI> Hezekiahs <HI>heart, the meaning is, he made known to</HI> Hezekiah <HI>what was in his heart.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>To Decree to Will God cannot be &s;aid; for that is as much as to Will to Will, which was never heard of, the object of the Will being at best but the imperate Act, not his own <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">licite Act; for what need of Willing to will a thing, when one Willing is enough? And be that wils to will, wils no more then he doth already, which is to will, one of the&s;e Acts mu&s;t needs be &s;uperfluous; and there is no ground to put any &s;uch in God, yea or man.
<PB N="79" REF="50"> I acknowledge a <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> in &s;ome ca&s;es may be &s;aid to Will to be more willing, as when the fle&s;h interp<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">th and draws him off from willing fully, or at lea&s;t from executing his will: but this is rather to will a freedom from a di&s;turbance of the &s;en&s;itive appetite, then to will the exerci&s;e of the rational will; now &s;uch an incumbrance of the will of God, there can be none, and con&s;equently no ground whereon to rai&s;e &s;uch an a&s;&s;ertion as this, that he may be &s;aid to Will, or decree to Will, which is equivolent. And thus it appears in general, that there is no new immanent Act in God required, yea po&s;&s;ible, to the Ju&s;tifying of a man, be|&s;ides his decree to Ju&s;tifie u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="29" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 29.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> I Confe&s;s I had farre rather be imployed in debating the point of Ju&s;tifi|cation, then of Gods Immanent acts, which you before in&s;i&s;ted on. But to deal freely with you, I never read from a Learned, Orthodox man, a more &s;uperficial, unprofitable Di&s;cour&s;e on that Subject, or that le&s;s expre&s;&s;eth a com|petent under&s;tanding of the point, if my Judgement fail not, as probably it may.</P>
<P N="1">1. To what purpo&s;e you tell us what Arguments you will not u&s;e (<HI>viz.</HI> from <HI>Rom.</HI> 8. 30.) I know not.</P>
<P N="2">2. Though I little know to what good u&s;e it would be, to acquaint us <HI>what is like Ju&s;tification,</HI> yet, me thinks, were it u&s;eful, it &s;hould have been better pro|ved. And fir&s;t me thinks your Memory fails you (which you had need to take extraordinary care of:) The la&s;t Di&s;cour&s;e was much &s;pent in &s;hewing that [there is a <HI>great</HI> difference between Immanent Acts and Tran&s;ient] and that [there is a clear difference between them as between heaven and earth: Tran&s;ient Acts being in the Patient, and Immanent in the Agent] So that to equal them in Eternity [is either to make the Creature eternal, or to deny God to be Eter|nal.] And now the &s;econd Di&s;cour&s;e mu&s;t be to prove them to be like: For the Decree which is an Immanent Act hath &s;omewhat like Ju&s;tification, which you confe&s;s a Tran&s;ient Act. But yet I doubt not but your Learning can make this good: For you that can prove that Gods Immanent Acts which are his E&s;&s;ence, do differ no more from poor mans, then as you have expre&s;&s;ed, may well prove, that Gods Immanent Acts are like Tran&s;ient Acts; much more that Heaven and Earth are like. And doubtle&s;s your undertaking is very fea&s;ible: For you may well prove, that there is a &s;imilitude between Gods Immanent acts, and a &s;tone, or a tree, or a worm, or any thing in the world: For you will &s;ay, that Gods Immanent acts are God him&s;elf, and that the&s;e Creatures are all Good: and then all things that are Good, are &s;omewhat Like to God: Therefore every thing in the world (having &s;ome Good) is &s;omewhat Like God: Al&s;o they have a Being, and therefore have &s;ome likene&s;&s;e to the fir&s;t Being. But then what Likene&s;&s;e this is, or in what Degree, you have more Wit then to undertake to tell.</P>
<P N="4">4. The Rea&s;on that you give for your not arguing from <HI>Rom.</HI> 8. 30 is becau&s;e [indeed he is &s;aid to have Glorified them al&s;o.] But how fell it ou<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> that you ob|&s;erved not, that on the &s;ame Rea&s;on, you &s;hould have rejected the Argu|ment which you here u&s;e? Becau&s;e indeed it &s;aith as much (for ought I know) to prove Gods Decree to be like Glorification, as to be like Ju&s;ti|fication.</P>
<P N="5">5. Should you not have told us in what &s;en&s;e you take Ju&s;tification before you
<PB N="80" REF="51"> define it? Who knows whether you mean Ju&s;tification Con&s;titutive, or Sen|tentiall? (not to &s;peak of the many other di&s;tinctions of Ju&s;tification.)</P>
<P N="6">6. Why would you tell the world what <HI>all Prote&s;tants</HI> take Ju&s;tification to be? as if you knew them all?</P>
<P N="7">7. At lea&s;t, how comes it to pa&s;s that &s;o Learned a man hath read &s;o little, and would bewray it &s;o ea&s;ily? as to &s;ay that [All Prote&s;tants con&s;ent that Ju&s;tifi|cation is the Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;in, and Accepting of us as Righteous?] Would you be believed in &s;uch notorious untruths which you fear not to utter even&punc; in a mat|ter of fact, where there is &s;o much vi&s;ible evidence again&s;t you? How many of our Engli&s;h Divines (be&s;ides all others) affirm Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;in to be a fruit or con&s;equent, and no part of Ju&s;tification? had you read but Mr. <HI>Brad&s;haw</HI> and Mr. <HI>Gataker,</HI> you would have known &s;ome. How many on the other &s;ide make Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;in antecedent to Ju&s;tification in order of nature? and Ju&s;tification to be its immediate con&s;equent? How many take Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;in to be the whole of our Ju&s;tification? yea what full Di&s;putes and Treati&s;es are written only or principally, or at lea&s;t very much to prove this? and what famous Divines are they that maintain it? How many be there that take Ju&s;tification to con&s;i&s;t part|ly in Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;in, and partly in the imputation of Chri&s;ts own Righteou&s;|ne&s;s? and the&s;e with the former &s;ay, that Accepting us as Righteous is a con&s;e|quent of Ju&s;tification: Sin mu&s;t fir&s;t be remitted, &s;ay the former, and Chri&s;ts Righteou&s;ne&s;s imputed ours, &s;ay the later, before God can Accept any man as Righteous: For man mu&s;t fir&s;t be Righteous, before he can be accepted as &s;uch&punc; Yea Mr. <HI>Arthur Dent</HI> in his Catechi&s;m, defines ju&s;tification to be, A clean&s;ing and renewing of our nature by the Spirit of God.</P>
<P>The number that are of the&s;e &s;everal opinions are &s;o great, and the men&punc; &s;o eminent, and well known to Divines that have been much ver&s;t in this Con|trover&s;ie, or are of any con&s;iderable reading in our Modern Writers, that I &s;hall think it needle&s;&s;e to cite any of them. Hath Mr. <HI>K.</HI> read none of all the&s;e&punc; or will he blot out their Names from the number of Prote&s;tants?</P>
<P N="8">8. Yet more gro&s;&s;ely doth he affirm, that he [knows no man that will &s;ay it is a meer tran&s;ient act.] I think then you have either read little of this Controver&s;ie, or little remember what you have read: at lea&s;t, are an unfit man to tell us what All men hold, or all Prote&s;tants, when you profe&s;s to know &s;o little. You might have &s;een this in &s;ome plain Engli&s;h books, that are in the hands of the multitude of tho&s;e below you. Mr. <HI>Tho. Hooker</HI> maintains it, That Ju&s;tification is not an Immanent but a Tran&s;ient act. But what need I name any, when it is known to to be the common Judgement of our Divines, and tho&s;e few that have maintained Ju&s;tification to be an Immanent act (and con&s;equently eternal) have been taken for Erroneous therein, and as militating &s;o farre for the Antinomians. See Mr. <HI>Burge&s;s</HI> of Ju&s;tification, <HI>Lect. 20. p.</HI> 167, 168, 169.</P>
<P N="9">9. If Ju&s;tification be a Tran&s;ient act, and yet not a meer Tran&s;ient act, then is it both an Immanent and a Tran&s;ient act. And if &s;o, then either it is two acts, or el&s;e the Immanent and Tran&s;ient act are one. If Ju&s;tification (Active) be two acts, then it &s;eems it is divi&s;ible; yea and one part of it is Eternal, and the other in Time only: And then we mu&s;t not enquire, What the ju&s;tifying act is? but What each of the&s;e ju&s;tifying acts are? Of this if I knew your minde, perhaps I might &s;ay more. If the Immanent and Tran&s;ient act be but one, dive<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;ly con&s;i|dered (1. As in the meer form of an Act, having not yet effected any thing; 2. And as the &s;ame act is received into the &s;ubject Pa&s;&s;ive, and &s;o is the Pa&s;&s;ion)
<PB N="81" REF="51"> then the &s;ame act is no more immanent, when it is once tran&s;ient; and then we mu&s;t &s;ay, that the act of Ju&s;tification was eternal, but the pa&s;&s;ion or effect in time only. But this &s;en&s;e &s;eems &s;o much to contradict, both your foregoing di&s;cour&s;e of the difference of Immanent and Tran&s;ient acts, and your after hint of the Tran&s;ient act which ju&s;tifyeth, that I will not imagine it to be the &s;en&s;e you intend.</P>
<P N="10">10. But your rea&s;on why no man will &s;ay it is a meer tran&s;ient act, is very darkly di&s;covered: It is becau&s;e [there is no tran&s;ient act of God, which doth not &s;uppo&s;e an immanent one.] But doth it follow that therefore Ju&s;tification is not a meer tran&s;ient act, becau&s;e it &s;uppo&s;eth an immanent act? Why did you not tell us whether it &s;uppo&s;e it as an antecedent, or as a part of Ju&s;tification, or as what el&s;e? But you know that all that is &s;uppo&s;ed is not therefore a part. Or if it were never &s;o nece&s;&s;ary a foregoing cau&s;e, yet it follows not that the neerer cau&s;e may not be <HI>cau&s;a totalis in &s;uo genere,</HI> and &s;o be denominated. May not you on the&s;e grounds as well &s;ay, that there is nothing in the world is a meer tran&s;ient act, becau&s;e it &s;uppo&s;eth an immanent? The building of a hou&s;e I think is a tran&s;ient act; and yet it &s;uppo&s;eth divers immanent acts in the builder, and an immanent act of God that willed it.</P>
<P N="11">11. But what is this immanent act? You adde [For that he acts nothing up|on the creature, but what he fir&s;t purpo&s;ed in him&s;elf to act.] I doubt not but you ea&s;ily &s;ee, that if this rea&s;on prove any thing, it will as well prove that Cre|ation, Redemption, Sanctification, Re&s;urrection, Glorification, are none of them meer tran&s;ient acts: For God acts the&s;e in Time: and therefore he fir&s;t purpo&s;ed to act them. Yea it will do as much to prove that God never did, nor can perform a meer tran&s;ient act: becau&s;e he can do nothing but what he purpo|&s;eth. What need you then apply this to Ju&s;tification any more then to any thing el&s;e? as if Ju&s;tification had any peculiar participation in this honour, above &s;ome other acts! By your rea&s;on, the dividing the red &s;ea, the &s;ending of Manna and Quails, the writing of the ten Commandments, were none of them meer tran|&s;ient acts.</P>
<P N="12">12. Immanent acts pa&s;s not into the extrin&s;ick objects and make no change on them, and therefore are not cau&s;all: and therefore cannot well as cau&s;als be denominated from their effects: therefore no immanent act of God can be called Ju&s;tification, or part of Ju&s;tification, or a ju&s;tifying act: For it mu&s;t be &s;o denominated from the effect of ju&s;tifying: But it is the tran&s;ient act only that effecteth Ju&s;tification (Pa&s;&s;ive:) therefore it is the tran&s;ient act only that is to be called Ju&s;tification.</P>
<P N="13">13. I have oft times asked the Antinomians, what text of Scripture they could &s;hew that calleth any Immanent Eternal act of God by the name of Ju&s;tification, or of part of Ju&s;tification? and I could never yet &s;ee any that they produced: and I &s;uppo&s;e that you are al&s;o unable to &s;hew any &s;uch; or el&s;e you would its like, have done it.</P>
<P N="14">14. When you &s;ay [God decreed to Ju&s;tifie] do not you plainly make [De|creeing] and [Ju&s;tifying] two things? and denominate only the tran&s;ient act which is in time [Ju&s;tification?] So of other&punc; acts; as when we &s;ay [God de|creed to create:] you do not &s;ay, His Decreeing was Creating.</P>
<P N="15">15. You conclude that [an Immanent act mu&s;t be confe&s;t if there be a Tran|&s;ient one.] <HI>An&s;.</HI> It is ea&s;ily confe&s;t that an Immanent act (&s;o called, for our under&s;tanding) there is from Eternity concerning every thing that is in Time
<PB N="82" REF="52"> produced: but that proves not that the producing act in Time, is not meerly tran&s;ient. I all this while &s;uppo&s;e that you mean by denying Ju&s;tification to be [a meer tran&s;ient act] to include &s;ome other act ju&s;tifying, or as part of Ju|&s;tification, and not only to prove an antecedency or concomitancy of &s;uch an Immanent act. El&s;e your rea&s;oning would be ab&s;urd or again&s;t your &s;elf.</P>
<P N="16">16. Having thus proved that there mu&s;t be an Immanent act, you next &s;ay, that [There can be no other then the Decree of God to pa&s;s this tran&s;ient act.] Your contention for this is bold, your proof of it weak. As Gods immanent acts are the &s;ame with his E&s;&s;ence, &s;o he hath but One, that is, he is but One: Un|der&s;tanding, Willing, Nilling, is all One; and &s;o there is but one Immanent act in Ju&s;tification, Condemnation, or what you will el&s;e, becau&s;e there is but One God: Or rather God hath nothing properly called an Act, becau&s;e he is God. But as we a&s;cribe One act to God Analogically &s;peaking of him according to our capacity, &s;o mu&s;t we on the &s;ame nece&s;&s;ity a&s;cribe to him more then One, and that is by denominating them from the variety of objects which they re&s;pect and connote. And &s;o as truly as you can di&s;tingui&s;h between the Divine Intelle|ction and Volition, &s;o truly may we di&s;tingui&s;h the Volitions of God, according to the divers &s;tate of the objects. And &s;o if we could yield to you that there is any Immanent act a part of Ju&s;tification, or that carrieth in it as much as concerneth acceptance of us as Righteous, we might fairly &s;ay as much, at lea&s;t, for another act, as you can do for the Decree: For the Decree that you &s;peak of, is only [a Decree to pa&s;s a tran&s;ient act] and &s;o hath for its object &s;omething future: But the Will of God <HI>de pr<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;enti,</HI> by which he willeth the relation of the ju&s;tified per|&s;on, is yet nearer the effect. So is his mentall approbation, and his acceptance of the per&s;on as Righteous (Willingly and Approvingly judging him Ju&s;t;) &s;ome call his e&s;timation of us to be Ju&s;t <HI>&s;ententiam conceptam</HI> as di&s;tinct from <HI>&s;enten|tia lata,</HI> but neerer to it then the Immanent Decree to pa&s;s an act <HI>de fu|tur<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.</HI></P>
<P N="17">17. You adde [That this Decree of God to pa&s;s the tran&s;ient act of ju&s;tifying, carries in it as much as concerns Gods remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins, and acceptance of us as Righteous.] By which words you may mean almo&s;t what your li&s;t; but how any man &s;hould under&s;tand your meaning that knows not your minde by &s;ome better di&s;covery, I do not know. 1. Whether do you mean by [as much as concerns] an e&s;&s;ential con&s;titutive concernment, <HI>q. d.</HI> [as much as con&s;tituteth?] But if &s;o, then you &s;hould exclude your tran&s;ient act, and the immanent alone &s;hould not be [&s;omewhat like Ju&s;tification] but Ju&s;tification it &s;elf. For if this imma|nent be as much as con&s;tituteth remi&s;&s;ion of &s;in, and acceptance of us as Righte|ous, and Ju&s;tification con&s;i&s;teth of the&s;e two only, then the immanent act is the whole of Ju&s;tification. Or if you mean [as much as concerneth it antecedently <HI>ex parte Dei</HI>] that were manife&s;tly fal&s;e: For the giving of Chri&s;t, the accepting his Satisfaction and Interce&s;&s;ion, and many other acts concerning Remi&s;&s;ion and Acceptance, are antecedent to Ju&s;tification. Or if you &s;hould mean it in the full latitude, as your words import, <HI>viz.</HI> That nothing concerneth our Remi&s;&s;ion and Acceptance but only Gods Decree, then it is yet more palpably fal&s;e: but this is &s;o gro&s;s that I may not &s;uppo&s;e you guilty of it, though your unlimited words do &s;eem to expre&s;s it. Or do you mean [as much of Gods immanent acti|on as concerns Remi&s;&s;ion and Acceptance is found in this Decree to pa&s;s the tran|&s;ient act,] &s;uppo&s;ing this to be part of our Ju&s;tification, and the tran&s;ient act the
<PB N="83" REF="52"> other part? But 1. your next words before and after &s;eem to contradict that. For you &s;ay it is [a Decree to ju&s;tifie] which therefore cannot be part of the thing Decreed. 2. And what mean you then to plead that it is [&s;omewhat Like Ju&s;ti|fication] if it be a part, and &s;uch a part. Is it worthy a Divine laboriou&s;ly to prove that a mans &s;oul is Like a man? Or that [laying the Foundation] is &s;omewhat Like to Building? The truth is, your terms per&s;wade me either that you hold that Antinomian eternal Ju&s;tification, which you are a&s;hamed plainly to reveal, or el&s;e that you know not what you hold your &s;elf.</P>
<P N="18">18. Yet do you repeat the&s;e ambiguous words again, as tho&s;e, it &s;eems, which be&s;t fit your de&s;ign: and you prove them thus: [If it do not, then the Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins, and Accepting of us as Righteous, are other immanent acts: but that cannot be:] Here you &s;eem to explain your meaning of the former words, that it is [a con&s;titutive concernment] that you &s;poke of: (but whether as the whole or as a part only I cannot tell.) For you &s;ay, that el&s;e the&s;e [<HI>are</HI> other im|manent acts] <HI>viz.</HI> [Remi&s;&s;ion and Acceptance <HI>are</HI> either Gods Decree, or other immanent acts.] But 1. why then do you make it your de&s;ign to prove Gods im|manent act to be &s;omewhat like Ju&s;tification? Remi&s;&s;ion and acceptance of us as Righteous, are more then like it. Did not you &s;ay before [Ju&s;tification is, by the con&s;ent of all Prote&s;tants, a Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;in and an acceptance of us as Righ|teous? 2. Why did you before lay your proof no higher then this, [that every tran&s;ient act <HI>&s;uppo&s;eth</HI> an immanent, <HI>viz.</HI> Gods Decree.] 3. It &s;eems to me here that you a&s;&s;ert eternal Ju&s;tification in the definition, while you di&s;claim it as to name. 4. At lea&s;t, you &s;eem (if I can under&s;tand you) to maintain that Re|mi&s;&s;ion of &s;in and Acceptation of us as Righteous are from eternity. For you here import that the&s;e [<HI>are</HI>] Gods Decree, and you el&s;ewhere &s;ay enough for the eter|nity of the Decrees. But you knew, its like, that this is &s;uch gro&s;s Antinomia|ni&s;m, as that it was not for your credit openly to own it in the plaine&s;t terms. You give me not &s;ufficient occa&s;ion here to &s;tay long in confutation of this Error: yet briefly this I &s;hall oppo&s;e. 1. He that was not a &s;inner from eternity, was not a pardoned &s;inner from eternity: (or, he that had no &s;in, had none remitted.) But you were not a &s;inner from eternity: Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> For the <HI>minor:</HI> He that <HI>was</HI> not from eternity, was not a &s;inner from eternity: but you were not from eternity: Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> If you &s;ay to the <HI>major,</HI> that it is enough to make us ca|pable of Remi&s;&s;ion, that we were &s;inners <HI>in e&s;&s;e cognit<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">:</HI> I an&s;wer, either you &s;peak <HI>de e&s;&s;e futuritionis,</HI> or <HI>de e&s;&s;e exi&s;tentiae ut cognito:</HI> If of the former, the a&s;&s;ertion is fal&s;e: for [Future] is a term of Diminution, as to any true Being. An inno|cet man is not a &s;ubject capable of Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;in, <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">o nomine,</HI> becau&s;e he will &s;in hereafter. If of the later, I &s;ay, God knows no man to be a &s;inner <HI>quoad exi&s;ten|tiam prae&s;entem,</HI> that is not a &s;inner: El&s;e he &s;hould know untruly. 2. Where there is no obligation to puni&s;hment there is no remi&s;&s;ion of &s;in. But on you or me there was no obligation to puni&s;hment from eternity: Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> The <HI>major</HI> is proved from the definition of Remi&s;&s;ion: which is A di&s;&s;olution of an obligation to puni&s;hment. Where there's no obligation, there's none to be di&s;|&s;olved. The <HI>minor</HI> is proved thus: He that is not a &s;inner is not obliged to pu|ni&s;hment: But you were not a &s;inner from eternity: Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Al&s;o <HI>Qui non</HI> E&s;t, <HI>non e&s;t obligatus ad p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nam: At tu ab aeterno non fui&s;ti:</HI> Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 3. That which is undone in Time was not done from Eternity. But &s;in is un|pardoned in Time, (<HI>viz.</HI> till we be united to Chri&s;t by faith, as Scripture abun|dantly witne&s;&s;eth:) Therefore it was not pardoned from Eternity. 4. God ac|cepteth
<PB N="84" REF="53"> no man as Righteous that is not Righteous (yea that is not) (for he ac|cepteth men as they are, and not as they are not.) But no man was Righteous from Eternity: Therefore God accepted none as Righteous from Eternity. But enough of that, till you &s;peak more openly.</P>
<P N="19">19. Your proof (that Remi&s;&s;ion and Acceptance are no other acts immanent but the Decree) is this: [For then either in the Under&s;tanding or the Will: but neither, <HI>&amp;c.] An&s;.</HI> 1. I ea&s;ily yield that Remi&s;&s;ion is no other immanent act; becau&s;e it is none at all 2. But your proof &s;eems none to me. You &s;ay, [Surely God cannot be &s;aid to Decree to know any thing, or to Decree to will any thing.] Your argument I think lies thus: [If God cannot be &s;aid to Decree to know or will any thing, then he hath no other immanent act but his Decree: But, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>] But here's no proof of the Con&s;equence; which needs proof. God cannot be &s;aid to Decree to know him&s;elf (according to you; for I profe&s;s I am ignorant of the&s;e high my&s;teries:) Doth it follow that therefore he doth not know him&s;elf? I think not. Nor doth it follow that the knowledge of him&s;elf is only his Decree, as I hope you will ea&s;ily confe&s;s. Moreover (accor|ding to you) God cannot be &s;aid to Decree to know things to be Pa&s;t. (For you &s;ay he cannot be &s;aid to Decree to know.) Yet I think God doth know, as his own Eternity, &s;o our Time, and the Futurition, Pre&s;ence, and Preterition of things in our Time: and therefore it doth not follow that he hath no knowledge of things, but his Decree. For his Decree (as now taken) is <HI>de futuris:</HI> but be&s;ides that God hath. 1. a knowledge <HI>de Praeteritis,</HI> and 2. <HI>de Prae&s;entibus.</HI> You argue, from the Nece&s;&s;ity of Gods knowledge and the Arbitrarine&s;s of his Decree: and many words you u&s;e which &s;hew that confidence which I admire at: that you &s;hould pretend to be &s;o far acquainted with the Divine Nature, as not only to a&s;cribe to God the acts of man &s;o far as you do, but to determine which acts are nece&s;&s;ary, and which arbitrary, and that he cannot Decree to Know or to Will. I confe&s;s I am ready to tremble in&s;tead of replying, to think into what My&s;teries you lead me &s;o boldly. But I re&s;olve no further to follow you, then to manife&s;t your pre&s;umption, and to &s;hew you that they are things un&s;earchable which you vainly pretend &s;o well to know. Gods Knowledge is commonly di&s;tin|gui&s;hed into <HI>&s;implicis Intelligentiae, &amp; Purae Vi&s;ionis:</HI> The former is &s;aid to be in order before the Decree, and the later in order after it: therefore neither of them are taken for the Decree it &s;elf: and will you overthrow both by reducing all to the Decree? The knowledge of Vi&s;ion is taken not to be nece&s;&s;ary &s;imply, but only on &s;uppo&s;ition of the Decree, which anteceding in order of nature doth cau&s;e the Intelligible objects. For, &s;ay they, it is by this Decree that things pa&s;s from the number of Po&s;&s;ibles, into the number of things Future: and they cannot be known as future, till they are future; and they are made future Freely and not Ne|ce&s;&s;arily: therefore in the knowledge of Futures there is a freedom <HI>radicaliter &amp; participativ&egrave;.</HI> And &s;o it is no &s;uch hard or ab&s;urd conce&s;&s;ion, to &s;ay, God might not have known what he knows: as long as he might not have made it an intelli|gible object.</P>
<P N="20">20. You next proceed to an objection, which you ca&s;t in your own way: and though I conceive you would not have made your &s;elf any work, but what you were confident you could honourably and ea&s;ily di&s;patch, yet here I think it fals out otherwi&s;e. The objection is from our u&s;e of &s;aying [Now we are ju&s;tified in Gods &s;ight.] Here 1. you &s;ay [This puts not a new act of knowledge in God] of which I have &s;aid enough before. 2. You tell us the &s;en&s;e of it: <HI>viz.</HI>
<PB N="85" REF="53"> that [It &s;ignifies only a Te&s;timony given by God, whereby he makes us know that we are ju&s;tified before God] and you &s;ay [Sight in God &s;ignifies a making us to &s;ee: and we are &s;aid to be ju&s;tified in his &s;ight, when he makes it, as it were, evident to our &s;ight that we are ju&s;tified.] This interpretation is to me &s;omething &s;trange, and not ea&s;ily received, both becau&s;e of its Errour, and be|cau&s;e you &s;ay &s;o little to cover that Errour, but thru&s;t &s;o gro&s;s a conceit upon us upon your own authority. I rather think that the a&s;cribing of &s;uch New acts to God, is 1. From the Moral Act of his Law, God being &s;aid to do that which his Law doth: and &s;o he is &s;aid to judge us Righteous, when his Law of grace doth &s;o judge us: and we are &s;aid to be Righteous <HI>in ae&s;timatione Divin&acirc;,</HI> when we are &s;o <HI>in &s;en&s;u Legis.</HI> 2. From the change of the object: For as the variety of objects denominateth Gods acts as divers, &s;o on the &s;ame rea&s;on the Novity of the objects mu&s;t denominate them as new, though they be immanent acts. 3. And by an Anthropopathie, Sight is oft put for Gods Remembrance or Ob&s;er|vation.</P>
<P>But you thru&s;t upon us pure Antinomian fancies. 1. If your conceits be true, then none is to be accounted [Ju&s;tified in Gods &s;ight] that do not &s;ee them&s;elves to be ju&s;tified; for you think [Sight in God, &s;ignifies a making us &s;ee.] Then wo to all tho&s;e hone&s;t &s;ouls that &s;ee not them&s;elves ju&s;tified, nay rather think them|&s;elves condemned: But yet if I di&s;cour&s;e with &s;uch, I will venture to give them better encouragement, for all your doctrine; and to tell them [You may be ju|&s;tified in Gods &s;ight, when you are condemned in your own.] 2. Shall we per|u&s;e the Scriptures that u&s;e that phra&s;e, and &s;ee whether all or any one of them can be under&s;tood as Mr. <HI>K.</HI> expoundeth them in the Antinomian way of <HI>Manife&s;ta|tion.</HI> P&s;al. 143. 2. <HI>For in thy &s;ight no man be ju&s;tified.</HI> Doth it mean, no man &s;hall &s;ee him&s;elf ju&s;tified? Jer. 18. 23. <HI>Forgive not their iniquity, neither blot out their &s;in from thy &s;ight.</HI> Is that only meant of hiding the remi&s;&s;ion from their &s;ight? or letting them know the <HI>non</HI>-forgivene&s;s? Where the Scripture &s;peaks &s;o oft of <HI>doing that which is good in the &s;ight of God,</HI> or <HI>that which is evil in his &s;ight,</HI> Doth it mean Gods making us to &s;ee that it is good or evil? What is &s;o good in the &s;ight of &s;inners as that which is evil in the &s;ight of God? Job 15. 15. <HI>The heavens are not clean in his &s;ight.</HI> Job 25. 5. <HI>The &s;tarres are not pure in his &s;ight.</HI> Is this &s;ight of God a making the creature &s;ee? Heb. 13. 21. <HI>Working in you that which is well plea&s;ing in his &s;ight.</HI> Is this making us &s;ee? It were too long to recite all; if the Reader will peru&s;e the re&s;t, 1 <HI>Joh 3. 22. Exod. 15. 26. 2 Sam. 12. 9. 1 Chron. 19. 13. P&s;al. 72. 14. Ho&s;. 6. 2. Rom. 3. 20. Mat. 11. 26. Luk.</HI> 10. 21. &amp; 15. 21. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 19. 14. &amp; 51. 4. &amp; 9. 19. &amp; 5. 5 <HI>Gen.</HI> 18. 3. &amp; 19. 19. or any other where this phra&s;e is u&s;ed concerning God, I leave it to his own judgement whether any one of them be taken in Mr <HI>K</HI>'s &s;en&s;e: That of 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 32. 31. which he brings, is neither the &s;ame phra&s;e, nor hath the &s;ame &s;en&s;e, and therefore is nothing to the matter. Yet is not Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s expo&s;ition of that &s;atisfactory neither: For he cannot prove that it is meant meerly of di&s;covering <HI>Hezekiah</HI>'s heart to him&s;elf. It may be as much the di&s;covery of it by the effects to others for their warning, and &s;o &s;hew the frailty of man: But the plain &s;en&s;e of the text referres that knowledge to God him&s;elf and not to any man; even by &s;uch an Anthropopathie which is ordinary in Scripture, as in <HI>Ezek. 12. 3. It may be they will con&s;ider, though they are a rebel|lious hou&s;e,</HI> as if God had been in an uncertain hope of it. So <HI>Luk. 20. 13. Jer.</HI> 36. 3. So where God is &s;aid to repent. If God &s;peak of him&s;elf to man after the manner of his own infirmity, mu&s;t we therefore &s;ay, he means [our knowledge] when he men|tioneth his own?</P>
<P N="21"><PB N="86" REF="54">21. That I may know whom he &s;peaks to, he addeth [I am &s;ure Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> who quoteth <HI>Suarez, Schibler</HI> and <HI>Keckerman</HI> at every bout cannot be ignorant, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>] The matter which he mentioneth is nothing to his Cau&s;e. But &s;ee what an overcharged &s;tomack this Learned man hath? How many ca&s;ts hath he had already in vomiting up the choler of his &s;corn? And yet it comes up &s;till as fre&s;h and as bitter as if he felt no <HI>levamen</HI> by all that evacuation. Truly his oft &s;corn|full repeating my quotation of the&s;e childi&s;h Authours, cau&s;ed me at la&s;t to turn over all my Book to &s;ee how oft it is that I quote them. And I can finde <HI>Suarez</HI> but once named, and no place of him cited. <HI>Keckerman</HI> but once cited, and there twice named; and <HI>Schibler</HI> thrice. Yet doth this man tell the world I quote them at every turn; &s;o well may we believe his confident A&s;&s;ertions about the un&s;earch|able nature and my&s;teries of God, who hath the face to &s;peak thus in a vi&s;ible mat|ter of fact, where any man that will but try it may finde him&mdash;Nay, &s;ee the mo|de&s;ty of the man! I cited two of them once, and the third thrice in a whole Book: and in the&s;e five or &s;ix leaves he tels me of it, or &s;corns me for it twelve times!</P>
<P N="22">22. He next addeth [To Decree to Will, cannot be &s;aid: for that is as much as to Will to Will, which was never heard of; the object of the Will being at be&s;t, but her imperate act, not her own elicite act.] <HI>Reply,</HI> 1. I &s;till abhor your pre&s;umptuous pretence of knowing more of God then you do know, and of &s;o mea&s;uring him by man. 2. Still <HI>defiderantur mode&s;tia &amp; veritas.</HI> Who would think that a man pretending &s;o much to Learning, &s;hould never have met with Schoolman, or Philo&s;opher that &s;peaks that which he here &s;aith [was never heard of] or having read it (yea or not having read it) dur&s;t &s;o boldly &s;peak thus? At lea&s;t he might have &s;een it in the mo&s;t ordinary and obvious Writings of our own Di|vines. In <HI>Ame&s;ius</HI> his Ca&s;es of Con&s;c. <HI>li. 1. cap.</HI> 7. the&s;e are the la&s;t words: <HI>Hinc ver&egrave; dicimus &amp; ex omnium gentium con&s;en&s;ie, Volo Velle.</HI> Believe which thou wilt, Reader; but I am &s;ure there's a wide difference between the&s;e two men: when one &s;aith, <HI>Dicimus omnium gentium con&s;en&s;u;</HI> and the other &s;aith [<HI>It was never heard of.</HI>] Yea <HI>Ferrius in Scholastic. Orthodox. cap.</HI> 29. (a Chapter worth the read|ing <HI>de praedeterminatione &amp; cau&s;a peccati</HI>) affirms it of God him&s;elf [<HI>Ideo videtur quod cum Deus permittit lap&s;um, non &s;e habet mere Negative, &s;ed cum aliquo actu po&s;i|tivo: &amp; ideo non &s;olum</HI> non vult, <HI>&s;ed etiam</HI> vult non <HI>Velle,</HI> i. e. <HI>Voluntas reflectitur &s;upra &s;e non volentem: Dum &s;cilicet non Vult</HI> Adamum <HI>peccare, &s;uspendendo actum Vo|litionis mera negatione, &s;ed etiam Vult &s;e non Velle: &amp; haec e&s;t actualis &amp; po&s;itiva per|mi&s;&s;io. Itae tamen ut in primo &s;igno &s;it Negatio pura,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Proinde cum Deus Volue|rit ab aeterno non Velle lap&s;um, habuit actum reflexivum &s;uper negationem,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>At De|terminavit fore inquies. Minime&punc; ab&s;it hoc.</HI>] This is approved by Churches of <HI>France.</HI> And yet this Learned man dare tell the world in print, that it was never heard of: which that he might have &s;afely done, he had need of more ears then two. And it &s;eems this Learned man hath read little of the contentions of the Je&s;uites and Dominicans about the nature of free-will, where he might have &s;een many of them touch this Que&s;tion, as <HI>Petavius</HI> doth again&s;t <HI>Vincentius Lenis,</HI> ali|&agrave;s, <HI>Fromondus,</HI> and others frequently. Nay it &s;eems he is a &s;tranger to the Schoolmen too: Perhaps in &s;tead of reading them, he contemns them as he doth <HI>Schibler, Suarez</HI> and <HI>Keckerman. Scotus in 4. &s;ent. di&s;t. 49. q. 3. fol. (mihi) 266. B.</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Finis extra e&s;t &s;impliciter optimum &amp; &s;umme volendum: Ergo inter ea quae &s;unt ad finem q<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">od e&s;t &s;ibi immediatim e&s;t magis volendum: &s;ed Velle e&s;t &s;ibi immediatius, quia immediat&egrave; tendit in ip&s;um ut in finem ultimum, cum finis ultimus ut huju&s;modi &s;it proprium objectum ip&s;ius Velle. Probo majorem: Illud e&s;t magis Volendum voluntate
<PB N="87" REF="54"> libera quod appetitui naturali naturaliter e&s;t magis appetendum: huju&s;modi e&s;t quod pro|pinquius e&s;t ultimo, quod &s;impliciter maxime appetitur naturaliter. Praetereae Voluntas pote&s;t Velle &s;uum actum, &s;icut Intellectus Intelligi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;uum actum: aut ergo Vult &s;uum Velle propter Intelligere, aut &egrave; conver&s;o, aut neutrum propter alterum: &amp; loquor de Velle ordinato.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Nicol. d'Orbellis</HI> &s;aith, <HI>in &s;ent. l. 2. di&s;t. 25. dub. 2. [Omne quod Vult, appetit ad &s;ui ip&s;ius imperium: quia &s;ic Vult aliquid ut</HI> Velit &s;e Velle illud: <HI>Et ideo in actu Volendi &s;eip&s;um movet, &amp; &s;ibi dominatur, &amp; pro tanto dicitur liberum (arbitrium) quamvis immutabiliter ordinetur ad illud.</HI>] And <HI>Gibieuf</HI> &s;hews, that God hath <HI>Actum vo|luntatis po&s;itivum circa &s;uam permi&s;&s;ionem li. 2. de Libert. cap. 24. &amp; cap. 22. &sect;. 7, 8, &amp;c.</HI> And why not as well then about his act. And Gods Will is his E&s;&s;ence: There|fore he willeth it. For that <HI>Deus vult &s;eip&s;um</HI> hath hitherto been unque&s;tioned, for ought I know (&s;o farre as he may be &s;aid at all to Will.) <HI>Aquinas 2. 2 ae. q. 25. a. 2. c.</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Quia enim Voluntatis objectum e&s;t Bonum &V;niver&s;ale, quicquid &s;ub ratione boni continetur, pote&s;t cadere &s;ub actu Voluntatis. Et quia ip&s;um Velle e&s;t quoddam Bo|num, pote&s;t</HI> Velle &s;e Velle, <HI>&s;icut &amp; Intellectus cujus objectum e&s;t Verum, Intelligit &s;e Intelligere, quia hoc etiam e&s;t quoddam Verum.] Vid. &amp; 1. q.</HI> 87. 3. 2^m. If I thought it nece&s;&s;ary, it were ea&s;ie to heap up many more that are of the &s;ame minde. But I &s;hall only in brotherly duty admoni&s;h Mr. <HI>K.</HI> to make more Con&s;cience hereaf|ter of fal&s;e &s;peaking: and &s;eeing he hath read &s;o very little, or lo&s;t it again, ra|ther humbly to acknowledge his Imperfection (as we that are guilty of the like mu&s;t al&s;o do) then to make a confident vain-glorious o&s;tentation of that which it &s;eems by this, and many the like pa&s;&s;ages, he hath not.</P>
<P>Let us adde &s;ome Rea&s;ons, that the Elicite acts may be the objects of other E|licite acts of the Will, and not the Imperate only, as Mr. <HI>K.</HI> &s;aith.</P>
<P N="1">1. As <HI>Scotus</HI> argueth before from the proportion with the Intellect. A man may under&s;tand that he doth under&s;tand, by a reflect act: Therefore he may Will that he Will.</P>
<P N="2">2. That which is an apprehended Good may be Willed: But an Elicite Act of the Will may be an apprehended Good: Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. A man may Will his everla&s;ting Happine&s;s: (For if the End may not be Willed, what may?) But his everla&s;ting Happine&s;s con&s;i&s;teth partly in the Eli|cite Acts of his own Will, everla&s;ting to be exerci&s;ed on God: [God being Objectively our Happine&s;s) Therefore, <HI>&amp;c. Velle, Amare, Frui,</HI> are acts that mu&s;t be perpetuated, and either may be Willed, or no man may will his own happine&s;s.</P>
<P N="4">4. What&s;oever is apprehended to be a fit means to this End or Happine&s;s, may be Willed: But the Elicit acts of the Will may be apprehended a fit means hereto: Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> They are commanded, and they are made Conditions of Happi|ne&s;s: and therefore are a means.</P>
<P N="5">5. The Effects of Gods &s;pecial &s;aving Grace on the &s;oul may be Willed: But the Elicite Acts of the &s;anctified Will, are the Effects (and principal effects) of Gods &s;pecial &s;aving Grace on the &s;oul: Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="6">6. That which a Chri&s;tian may pray for, that he may and mu&s;t Will: But he may pray for the Elicite Acts of a &s;anctified Will: Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> As he may pray, Lord, I Believe, help my Unbelief: So he may pray [Lord I am Wil|ling, make me more Willing, and hereafter Willing, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="7">7. Experience is in &s;tead of a thou&s;and arguments, I feel that my Willingne&s;s is the object of my unwillingne&s;s; and that in the&s;e &s;everal wayes. 1. I feel that
<PB N="88" REF="55"> upon the review of my pa&s;t Willingne&s;s, and the &s;ight of my pre&s;ent Willingne&s;s (in any Good) my Will hath a Complacency in it, which is a true <HI>Velle,</HI> yea the fir&s;t and principal Elicite Act of the Will. 2. I finde that by a le&s;s perfect and inten&s;e Act, I do Will a more perfect Act. I am &s;omewhat Willing, but I would fain be more Willing. Nay to procure the Amendment of my own heart by this increa&s;e of my Willingne&s;s (which is indeed the Increa&s;e of mo&s;t of my Graces) is the main bu&s;ine&s;s of my life, committed to me by God, and to be in|tended by my &s;elf. And if I &s;hould ca&s;t off this great bu&s;ine&s;s, and neither de|&s;ire more Willingne&s;s or Grace, nor pray for more, nor labour for more, becau&s;e Mr. <HI>K.</HI> out of his &s;ubtilty <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e&s;s me, that the Elicite Act is not the Wils object, I &s;hould be befool'd out of my Chri&s;tianity and Salvation by a trivial trick of vain Philo&s;ophy. 3. I finde that by a pre&s;ent Act of Will, I do Will a future Act. I do Will now that I may al&s;o Will to morrow, and to my lives end, and for ever in glory, and that better then now I do. 4. I feel that I do Will a more &s;incere Willingne&s;s. I do Will Salvation with too much re&s;pect to my &s;elf in it, and too little to Gods honour. Now I would fain Will this more for God then I do. 5. I would fain Nill many things which through my corruption I now Will. 6. I would fain oft &s;u&s;pend a vicious act of my Will, at lea&s;t. In all the&s;e re&s;pects, the Elicite Act of my Will is the object of my Will.</P>
<P>But Mr. <HI>K.</HI> will be Learned in de&s;pight of Natural and Gracious Experience (for I hope, for all his Learning, that he Would Love God more, as Love is taken for an act of the Rational part, and that he Wils a greater and a per&s;evering, yea a perpetual Willingne&s;s of God and obedience; and a fruition of God, and <HI>frui</HI> is an act of the Will:) He will therefore prove what he once &s;aith, and that's thus. [For what need of Willing to Will a thing, when one Willing is enough? And he that Wils to Will, Wils no more then he doth already, which is to Will: one of the&s;e acts mu&s;t needs be &s;uperfluous, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>] To which I Reply; You may &s;ee in the &s;everal In&s;tances which I gave before, that it is needfull, and that it is not &s;uperfluous, as you &s;ay, and that it is more then he did before; A more perfect act, a future act, a perpetuated act, are more then he did before. Yea its a doubt, Whether a very gracele&s;&s;e man may not <HI>Velle intendere Deum, vel frui Deo</HI> yea &s;trictly Will to Will God as his happine&s;s, or to Will Holine&s;s before Volu|ptuou&s;ne&s;s, who yet doth it not already. And me thinks &s;o acute a man might &s;ee that this is not the &s;ame act which he performeth already, for it hath not the &s;ame object. The man is Willing to be &s;aved from Hell, but Unwilling to be Holy: He is convinced that he &s;hall not be &s;aved, unle&s;&s;e he become Willing to be Holy: Therefore he wi&s;heth he were Willing to be Holy: If this were but with a Velleity, it is yet an Elicite Act of the Will, but it may be called a Volition, though uneffectual, becau&s;e there is a &s;tronger con|trary Will: So that it is <HI>Volitio quoad actum Ab&s;olutum,</HI> but <HI>quoad actum Com|paratum,</HI> he is unwilling. The Object of that Will which he hath, is his <HI>Velle &s;anctitatem:</HI> the Object of that Will which he would have, is Holi|ne&s;s it &s;elf. If that <HI>Velle &amp; &s;anctitas</HI> be not all one, then the&s;e two Acts be not all one.</P>
<P>But Mr. <HI>K.</HI> confe&s;&s;eth at la&s;t that a man may be &s;aid to Will to be more Willing, but he &s;aith [this is rather to Will a freedom from a di&s;turbance of the &s;en&s;itive appetite, then to Will the exerci&s;e of the rational Will.] But why is it that this man would not be di&s;turbed by the &s;en&s;itive appetite? Is it not becau&s;e he would Will freely? Doth not he that Willeth the means, much more Will the End?
<PB N="89" REF="55"> And is not the Removal of the Impediment, a Means to your freer and more In|ten&s;e Willing? And do not you your &s;elf Will the increa&s;e of your Willingne&s;s upon the quieting of that Appetite? Be&s;ides, I hope you do not think that the di|&s;turbance of the &s;en&s;itive Appetite, is the onely Cau&s;e of our Imperfection in actual Willing: Or that our own Habitual Corruption and di&s;temper of the Will it &s;elf, is not a greater Cau&s;e.</P>
<P>After all this you conclude, that [it appears there is no new Immanent act in God required yea po&s;&s;ible to the ju&s;tifying of a man, be&s;ides his Decree to ju&s;tifie.] To which I &s;ay, Though it little appear to me from any of your arguing, yet I ea&s;ily yield to the Negative part of your Conclu&s;ion; and I &s;ay, that the De|cree it &s;elf is no part of Ju&s;tification, but an Antecedent.</P>
<P>Again, Let it be ob&s;erved, that all this arguing will as much prove that Gods Immanent act is like to Creation, Sanctification, Glorification, Damnation, or any thing that ever God did, as to Ju&s;tification: For of all his Works it is as true, that he doth nothing but what he decreed to do. And &s;o it may as well be &s;aid that our Glorification is an Immanent act from Eternity, as our Ju&s;ti|fication.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="30" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 30.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. K. <HI>MOre particularly, it will be as Evident that his Decreeing to Remit our &s;ins, carries a Remi&s;&s;ion of them tantamount: For who &s;hall charge them on us, where God decreeth to remit them? The Con&s;cience I confe&s;s may; &s;o may the Devil joyning with our con&s;cience&punc; but all this while their charge is of no great danger to us, when God hath decreed to remit them to us: and though they may trouble us they can|not damn us, for that their charge is to be brought in Gods Nam<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, as for &s;ins committed again&s;t his Crown and Dignity: Now where he hath decreed to remit tho&s;e &s;ins, there is no danger of &s;uffering for them, let what ever accu&s;ers manage the Evidence again&s;t us, all that they can do is but this, to bring us to cry Guilty, and thereupon to appeal to God for Mercy; who upon our appeal to him for Mercy, he is graciou&s;ly plea&s;ed to pronounce pardon to us. God him&s;elf I acknowledge al&s;o may charge them on us; and proceed in &s;everity again&s;t us for a while; but this charge is not any way ob&s;tructive to his Decree to remit &s;in, but rather &s;ub&s;ervient to it, and to bring us to &s;ee and confe&s;s our &s;ins, and ca&s;t our &s;elves wholly on his Mercy in Chri&s;t, in which re&s;pect I might better &s;ay, that God doth &s;hew love even in puni&s;hing unregenerate men that are Elect, then you did erewhiles, that he may be &s;aid</HI> to hate Godly men, <HI>when he puni&s;heth or rather correcteth them: Puni&s;hment ayming chiefly at the &s;atisfaction of Ju&s;tice, Correction at the amendment of the offender. So then his Decree of Remitting carries in it as much as is required for any <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">mmanent Act in him to our Remi&s;&s;ion, and &s;o much as nece&s;&s;arily procures the tran|&s;ient Act in the time that he hath appointed for it. His Decrees are like Mount Zion, and &s;tand fa&s;t for ever:</HI> The Coun&s;el of the Lord &s;tandeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 33. 11.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="30" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 30.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> YOur [tantomount] is a word made for your u&s;e; Cau&s;es that dare not &s;ee the light, u&s;e to go covered with &s;uch terms as will &s;tretch. But if you mean plainly, that the Decree doth amount to as much as a remi&s;&s;ion of &s;in,] then I mu&s;t needs &s;ay, that your Doctrine is tantamount Antinomiani&s;m. Let
<PB N="90" REF="56"> the con&s;cientious Reader that loves Gods truth and his own Peace, con&s;ider by the&s;e few particulars following, what a Theology, nay what a Chri&s;tianity this Learned man would introduce.</P>
<P N="1">1. Doth not this lead men to &s;light Chri&s;t and his &s;ufferings, and to look on his Death as that which did them no great good? For when all our &s;ins were tan|tamount forgiven from Eternity, there was little left for Chri&s;t to do by his Death, Merit, Interce&s;&s;ion, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> as to our Remi&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P N="2">2. How &s;mall a matter is left for the Regenerate to receive upon their Repent|ing and Believing in Chri&s;t, as to Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins, when they are tantamount (I mu&s;t u&s;e Mr&punc; <HI>K</HI>'s School-term) remitted already? Is this the Repenting and Believing for Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;in which Scripture mentioneth?</P>
<P N="3">3. How &s;mall a matter is left for Bapti&s;m to &s;eal and exhibit, as to Remi&s;&s;ion, when all &s;in was tantamount Remitted from Eternity?</P>
<P N="4">4. Where is the Excellency and Glory of the Go&s;pel, either as to the Narra|tive, Preceptive, or Promi&s;&s;ory part? For the Narrative, it makes a large De|claration how Chri&s;t was Promi&s;ed, Incarnate, Born, how he Obeyed, Suffer|ed, Satisfied, Merited, Ro&s;e, Intercedeth to procure a Remi&s;&s;ion which was tantamount done already even from Eternity. For the Preceptive, it pre&s;c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">i|beth man a way to obtain Remi&s;&s;ion by coming to Chri&s;t, and to maintain that Remi&s;&s;ion by abiding in Chri&s;t, when our &s;ins were tantamount remitted from Eternity. The Promi&s;e &s;eemeth to hold forth an excellent benefit, and all men are invited to Receive it; and when all's done, it offereth and promi&s;eth to do that which is done tantamount already from Eternity. If you &s;ay, that yet Chri&s;t and the Go&s;pel have their Excellency as they re&s;pect other benefits, <HI>viz.</HI> our San|ctification and Glorification: I an&s;wer according to Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s grounds, it mu&s;t be &s;aid that the&s;e al&s;o were done tantamount from Eternity, in that they were Decreed.</P>
<P N="5">5. How &s;mall a matter have Chri&s;tians daily to pray for, in that Petition [<HI>Forgive us our tre&s;pa&s;&s;es</HI>] when they were tantamount forgiven from Eternity? And what a &s;pur is this to prayer?</P>
<P N="6">6. How &s;mall a matter have they to Give Thanks for, as received through Chri&s;t from the promi&s;e, upon prayer, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="7">7. How &s;mall a matter as to Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;in, do we receive in the Lords Sup|per, when it was done tantamount before?</P>
<P N="8">8. How great a help doth this Doctrine give to Obedience, when men are told that all their &s;ins are tantamount forgiven from Eternity?</P>
<P N="9">9. How &s;mall a Difference between the &s;tate of the Regenerate and unre|generate, &s;uppo&s;ing them Elect? The &s;ins of one are forgiven, and the other tantamount.</P>
<P N="10">10. How un&s;oundly do we per&s;wade wicked men of their mi&s;ery, and tell them that God hateth all the workers of iniquity, and that they are by nature children of wrath, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> when for ought we know all their &s;ins were tantamount forgiven from Eternity? And how hard to convince them of any &s;uch mi&s;ery, when they have this Reply? Lay all this together, and &s;ee how much of our Religion and Chri&s;tianity is left!</P>
<P>But he proves all this by a Que&s;tion [Who &s;hall charge them on us where God decreeth to remit them?] I Reply, The &s;ame per&s;ons, and as many as might have charg'd them on us, if God had not decreed it. His Decree takes off no charge, nor di&s;ables any from charging us. It were not an Immanent Act, if it did <HI>ponere aliquid in objecto.</HI> 1. We are as much under the Charge, Cur&s;e, or
<PB N="91" REF="56"> Condemnation of the Law, till we believe, as if no &s;uch Decree had pa&s;&s;ed. 2. What the Law doth, God doth by it; for it is his In&s;trument. 3. Satan may charge us, 4. And &s;o may con&s;cience. 5. And men. But you confe&s;s your &s;elf that Con&s;cience, Satan, and God may charge us&punc; But you &s;ay [there is no danger] Reply. 1. What if you were to lie all your life in torment with the &s;tone or gout, and yet were &s;ure that you &s;hould die never the &s;ooner, and &s;o there were no danger? Would you think your &s;elf tantamount a &s;ound man? Is it &s;o &s;mall a matter in your eyes for an elect man to lie under the guilt of &s;in, and as an enemy to God till near his death, &s;o be it he be not in danger of damnati|on? 2. If you mean that their damnation is <HI>non-futura,</HI> I confe&s;s it: And &s;o it would be if God &s;hould but fore-know it, and not decree it (&s;uppo&s;ing it might be the object of &s;uch a fore-knowledge.) 3. But yet I think it is not fit language to &s;ay [there is no danger of &s;uffering for &s;ins that God hath decreed to remit.] I &s;ee &s;till whither Antinomiani&s;m tends. 1. If Chri&s;t did die to de|liver us from danger of &s;uffering, then we were in danger of &s;uffering: But Chri&s;t did die to deliver us from it: Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Would you make us be|lieve that Chri&s;t &s;aved us from no danger by his death? 2. The actual Con|ver&s;ion and Ju&s;tification of the Elect, is a &s;aving them from danger: Therefore they were in danger. 3. If the Elect unconverted are in no danger, then you mu&s;t preach no danger to them, nor per&s;wade them to avoid any, nor to repent the incurring of any: or if, becau&s;e you know not the Elect, you &s;peak to all of danger, you mu&s;t tell them that you mean it not of the Elect: But what &s;ucce&s;s &s;uch preaching would have, is ea&s;ie to conjecture. 4. Wh<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">re men are bound to Fear and Apprehend danger, there is danger: But God bindeth the Elect (even after Conver&s;ion, much more before) to Fear and Apprehend danger: There|fore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> There can be no Fear, where there is no Apprehen&s;ion of danger; no more then there can be Love without the Apprehen&s;ion of Good to be beloved. Chri&s;t bids his Di&s;ciples, <HI>Fear him that is able to de&s;troy both body and &s;oul in hell fire:</HI> And &s;o <HI>Heb. 4. 1. Fear le&s;t a promi&s;e being left of entring into his re&s;t, any of you &s;hould come &s;hort of it.</HI> God bids us fear: Mr. <HI>K.</HI> tantamount bids us, Fear not, by telling us there is no danger. 5. Where men are bound to labour, run, &s;trive, and u&s;e much means to e&s;cape danger, there is danger: But &s;o God hath bound the Elect: Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> How many Texts might be cited that binde us to &s;ave our &s;elves, and &s;eek our deliverance, and that &s;peak of our e&s;caping, our de|liverance and &s;alvation, which all imply a danger from which we e&s;cape, are &s;a|ved and delivered? 6. <HI>Matth. 5. 21, 22. He that calleth his brother Fool, is in dan|ger of hell &s;ire:</HI> But an Elect man hath called his brother fool: The<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">efore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 7. Nay if this be true, then God never &s;aved his people from any Danger. For he that never was in danger cannot be &s;aved out of it. And he that was from E|ternity Decreed to be pardoned, according to your Doctrine, was never in dan|ger. 8. And then we ought to give no thanks to God the Father, or to Chri&s;t the Redeemer, or to the holy Gho&s;t the Sanctifier, nor to any Preacher or other In&s;trument, for &s;aving us from any danger of puni&s;hment. I think the&s;e are not matters to be made light of: nor that Doctrine of Libertini&s;m to be cheri&s;hed, which plainly leadeth to &s;uch unhappy fruits.</P>
<P>But let us peru&s;e your Rea&s;ons: You &s;ay [the charge is to be brought in Gods name.] Reply. So it may be neverthele&s;s for the Decree; for that takes off none of the charge. You adde [All they can do is but this, to bring us to cry Guilty, and thereupon appeal to God for Mercy, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>] Reply. 1. Mu&s;t they cry Guil|ty,
<PB N="92" REF="57"> and look for Mercy and Remi&s;&s;ion, that were tantamount forgiven from E|ternity? 2. Either you &s;peak of an uncoverted elect per&s;on in this life; or el&s;e as &s;uppo&s;ing he were at Judgement in that e&s;tate. If the later be your meaning, then their Accu&s;ation might and would do more then you &s;peak of, and would tend to condemnation (if &s;uch a ca&s;e might be &s;uppo&s;ed.) If the former be your meaning, then the&s;e Elect per&s;ons do [Cry Guilty, and appeal to Mercy] with true Faith, or without it. If with Faith, then their &s;ins are remitted further then by Decree, and the&s;e are not the per&s;ons now in Que&s;tion. If without faith then they are not Forgiven for all this. As long as the Elect remain unregenerate, though that Law, and Satan, and Con&s;cience accu&s;e them, yet they do not Belie|vingly &s;eek mercy: and if they were in that &s;tate at Judgement, it were too late to &s;eek Mercy.</P>
<P>Next you [acknowledge that God him&s;elf al&s;o may charge &s;in on us, and pro|ceed in &s;everity again&s;t us for a while; but this charge is not any way ob&s;tructive to his Decree to Remit &s;in, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>] Reply. God may be &s;aid to charge &s;inne on the Elect before faith. 1. By obliging them by his Law to puni&s;hment. 2. By in|flicting &s;ome &s;mall part of the puni&s;hment on them. You &s;eem to me to take notice notice only of the later. But every Chri&s;tian mu&s;t acknowledge that for all Gods Decree, we are all <HI>Obligati ad poenam &s;empiternam,</HI> till we are united to Chri&s;t by faith. To &s;ay this is not ob&s;tructive to Gods Decree, is nothing to the que&s;tion. The worlds being uncreated from Eternity, did not ob&s;truct Gods Decree of making it, and the Elect's being un&s;anctified or unglorified doth not ob&s;truct Gods Decree of Sanctifying and Glorifying them: and yet this proves not per&s;ecuting <HI>Saul</HI> was tantamount &s;anctified and Glorified. And what if God make the knowledge of our Damnable &s;tate, or our <HI>non</HI>-remi&s;&s;ion, a means to Re|mi&s;&s;ion? That doth not prove that we are before remitted in whole or in part, or tantamount.</P>
<P>Whether you &s;peak to Mr. <HI>Goodwin</HI> or me, about the phra&s;e of [hating the Godly] I know not: but if to me, I do not believe that ever I &s;o &s;poke.</P>
<P>Your di&s;tinction of Puni&s;hment from cha&s;ti&s;ement, is perver&s;e: &s;o learned a man &s;hould know, that Puni&s;hment is the <HI>Genus</HI> and Cha&s;ti&s;ement is a <HI>species</HI> of it. All Puni&s;hment is for the Demon&s;tration of Ju&s;tice; but not all for the &s;atisfaction of Ju&s;tice, Correction is as well for a Demon&s;tration of Ju|&s;tice, as for Amending the Offendor: El&s;e it were meer Affliction, and no Correction.</P>
<P>Your Conclu&s;ion next laid down, much differs from the divers formerly laid down, and which you &s;hould have proved; and yet I have &s;hewed, for part of this, how ill you have proved it: though, for my part, I know no Cau&s;e that I am engaged in that will be any whit prejudiced by yielding you all; as I ea&s;ily yield you, that the Tran&s;ient Act will certainly follow.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="31" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 31.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. NExt his Decree to Accept us, carrieth as much too; and there needs nothing but a Tran&s;ient Act to prove his Acceptance, and evidence it to us: for to decree to look upon us as righteous, is not to look upon us as righteous in our &s;elves, but his &s;on; and to this looking on us, there needs no new immanent Act, beyond his electing us to faith in his Son, and per&s;everance in that faith: Thus he may be &s;aid to give us to his Son
<PB N="93" REF="57"> before, and &s;o then there is no new immanent act. Gods Remitting our &s;ins, and ac|cepting us as Righteous, though they &s;ound like Immanet acts, are to be &s;en&s;ed as Tran&s;ient, and how &s;hall be &s;hewed next: in the</HI> interim <HI>this which hath been &s;aid is &s;ufficient to &s;hew, That in the Decree of God to ju&s;tifie us, there is &s;omewhat that looks like Ju&s;tification; and no other immanent act in God is required to our Ju&s;tification; be&s;ides his Decree from Eternity to ju&s;tifie us in time.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="31" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 31.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> I Shall never think the highe&s;t pretenders to exact explications to be the be&s;t performers, for your &s;ake. You treat of Acceptance; but who can finde by all that you &s;ay, what you mean by [Acceptance.] You &s;ay, [Though it &s;ound like an Immanent act it is to be &s;en&s;ed as Ttran&s;ient,] but what that Tran&s;ient act is, for all your promi&s;es, I can hardly finde you di&s;covering. Surely [to Accept] in our ordinary &s;peech &s;ignifieth an Immanent act of the Will; but &s;o you take it not; el&s;e mu&s;t you yield that Immanent acts may be Decreed. Be|&s;ides this, it may &s;ignifie the Moral action of the Law of Grace, which virtually judgeth the per&s;on Righteous, and its action is Gods action. But this you can le&s;s dige&s;t: and therefore what your [Acceptance] means, let him tell that knows. All that I can finde is, either that it is [the Giving of faith] or [the Making us know our Acceptance] of which more anon.</P>
<P>You &s;ay [There needs nothing but a Tran&s;ient act to prove his Acceptance, and evidence it to us.] <HI>Rep.</HI> Here is then but two Acts needfull: the one is [Decree|ing to Accept us as Righteous:] This is not Accepting, as the word and your own confe&s;&s;ion witne&s;s: The other is [a Tran&s;ient act to prove and evidence his Acceptance.] This cannot be acceptance neither: For what man will &s;ay, that the evidence and proof is formally the &s;ame with the thing proved and evidenced? Is it all one [to Accept] and [to evidence and prove Acceptance?] What a maze do you run your &s;elf into under pretence of di&s;covering the truth? You have fairly di&s;puted [Acceptance] into Nothing.</P>
<P>You adde [For to Decree to look upon us as Righteous, is not to look upon us as Righteous in our &s;elves but in his Son.] <HI>Rep.</HI> To Decree to look, is not to Look: el&s;e you may &s;ay, it is a Decree to Decree. Your phra&s;es of [in our &s;elves] and [in his Son] may be &s;o interpreted as to make your &s;en&s;e true; but if you mean that it is Chri&s;t only and not we, who is the &s;ubject of that relative Righ|teou&s;ne&s;s, which formally makes us Ju&s;t, then it is fal&s;e.</P>
<P>You &s;ay [And to this looking on us, there needs no new Immanent act be&s;ides electing to Faith and Per&s;everance.] <HI>Rep.</HI> I pray you then tell us what you mean by [Looking on us:] an Immanent act it is not, you think: And is Gods [Looking on us as Ju&s;t] a tran&s;ient act? What act then is it? Did you &s;ay, That God is &s;aid to Look on us as Ju&s;t, when his Law call us Ju&s;t, I &s;hould not di&s;|agree with you: but you di&s;claim that. But I forgot that you did expound your meaning before upon [Gods &s;eeing:] as Gods &s;eeing is a making us to &s;ee, &s;o its like you mean [Gods Decree to look on us as Ju&s;t] is a Decree to make us Look on our &s;elves as Ju&s;t: and &s;o the per&s;on is changed. But if this be your meaning, I had as lieve you &s;aid nothing.</P>
<P>But I will tell you again, that if you will take [an Immanent act] <HI>formaliter</HI> for Gods e&s;&s;ence, &s;o there is none new, nor is there any more then one; Knowing, Willing and Nilling, Love and Hatred are all one. But if you will conde&s;cend
<PB N="94" REF="58"> to us of the &s;impler &s;ort, and &s;peak of Immanent acts as applied to God after the manner of men, and as his acts are <HI>formaliter,</HI> or <HI>modaliter,</HI> or <HI>relativ&egrave;,</HI> or <HI>denomi|nativ&egrave;,</HI> or however el&s;e (in a way unknown to us) di&s;tinct from his e&s;&s;ence, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">o as they may be diver&s;ified among them&s;elves without di&s;paragement to Gods &s;im|plicity, they may al&s;o begin and end without di&s;paragement to his Immutability, for any thing that you have yet &s;aid to the contrary. And &s;o as they are diver&s;i|fied or &s;aid to begin <HI>denominativ&egrave; ex connotatione objecti,</HI> they may as well be &s;aid to be the objects of Gods eternal Decree. And thus I conceive, Decree re&s;pecting the future, and [Accepting and Approving] being acts that connote a pre&s;ent object, and &s;o may not be &s;aid [to be &s;uch acts] till the object exi&s;t, therefore God may well be &s;aid to Decree to Accept us, and Approve us, and Love us, and Delight in us, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> though all be Immanent acts. And &s;o my conclu&s;ion &s;hall be contrary to yours, that you have not proved that there is no other Immanent act in God required to our Ju&s;tification, be&s;ides his Decree; and if you had, yet you had done little to the bu&s;ine&s;s: And that you have no more proved [that in the Decree is &s;omething that looks like Ju&s;tification] then that it looks like Crea|tion, Salvation, Damnation; And had you proved it never &s;o &s;trongly, I know not to what purpo&s;e it is. It is &s;omewhat like God that is called his Image in his Saints: and yet he that cals the Saints, God, may bla&s;pheme for all that.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="32" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 32.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. 3. THat this Immanent act cannot be called Ju&s;tification, appears hence, that no Immanent act makes a real change in the &s;ubject, as Ju&s;tification doth&punc; That a Will to ju&s;tifie us, is as Mr.</HI> Baxter <HI>rightly &s;aith,</HI> terminus diminuens, <HI>and cannot be the act whereby we are ju&s;tified, That Ju&s;tification is on all hands confe&s;&s;ed to be pronouncing or declaring of us Righteous, which cannot be done by an Immanent act alone: What then is the Tran&s;ient act? Before I can &s;peak punctually to this, it is fit to &s;et down that Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins, and e&s;tating us in the condition and priviledges of Righteous, are the two main parts di&s;tingui&s;hed</HI> ratione ratiocinata <HI>at lea&s;t, all grant, I mu&s;t needs &s;ay, I think Really. Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins being the fir&s;t, and which of cour&s;e draws the other after it, enquire we 1. Whether there <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e a Tran&s;ient act of God whereby he remits our our &s;ins? 2. What this is?</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="32" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 32.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> I Am loath to &s;peak again&s;t you where you are plea&s;ed to plead my cau&s;e; yet I mu&s;t give you the&s;e brief Animadver&s;ions. 1. That Ju&s;tification makes on the &s;ubject a real change, as oppo&s;ed to Feigned, Nominal, Potential, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> I yield: but not as oppo&s;ite to Relative: Wherefore our Divines ordinarily call Sanctification a Real change, as oppo&s;ite to the Relative change of Ju&s;tifica|tion. 2. It is but one &s;ort of <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">u&s;tification which is [on all hands confe&s;&s;ed to be a pronouncing or declaring us Righteous:] your &s;elf do afterwards &s;peak of Ju&s;ti|fication in a &s;en&s;e that will not agree with this. Who doth not yield that Con&s;ti|tutive Ju&s;tification goes before Sentential? Doth not God make us Ju&s;t before he judge and pronounce us &s;o? Yet in this confu&s;ion do you go on &s;till; and &s;uch a &s;tirre do you make with [Immanent and Tran&s;ient] as if you would wear the&s;e words thredbare, or never have done with them? So Immanent are
<PB N="95" REF="58"> the&s;e Notions in your Phanta&s;ie, that when they will be Tran&s;ient I can|not tell.</P>
<P>So often do you promi&s;e us over and over to enquire what is the Tran&s;ient act in Ju&s;tification, and talk of [&s;peaking punctually to it] that you rai&s;ed my ex|pectation to &s;uch a height, that I looked for much more then ordinary: But when I had read to the end, and could &s;carce perceive certainly, whether ever you &s;pake to the Point at all, or at lea&s;t in &s;o few &s;yllables and &s;o ob&s;curely, that I am un|certain whether I under&s;tand what you mean, I confe&s;s you left me between ad|miration and indignation! that after all your prologues and promi&s;es, and our greate&s;t hopes, you &s;hould drop a&s;leep when you &s;hould come to the work, or cea&s;e before you remembred the performance, made me re&s;olve to &s;et lighter by &s;uch pro|mi&s;es hereafter.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="33" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 33.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. [TO prove that there is a Tran&s;ient act, they tell us no more (&s;aith Mr.</HI> Baxter) <HI>but this, that it doth</HI> tran&s;ire in &s;ubjectum extraneum, <HI>by making a mo|rall change on our Relations, though not a real upon our per&s;ons.] I confe&s;s every</HI> tran|&s;itio, <HI>to u&s;e that word,</HI> in &s;ubjectum extraneum <HI>making a Morall change, is not ne|ce&s;sarity a Tran&s;ient act: For if it be only as upon an Object, whereto is given but an extri<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;ecall denomination, not as upon the &s;ubject of a Reall change, made by the act, the act hath no title to Tran&s;ient: for knowledge doth this much: but whereever is a Moral or a Legal change made, there is of nece&s;&s;ity a Tran&s;ient act: for that the Laws of men take no notice of Immanent acts; and the Law of God takes no notice of any change made in the object of bare Immanent acts: A man by lu&s;ting after a woman commits Adultery puni&s;hable by the Law of God; the woman is nothing the more defiled: So a man that covets his neighbours goods, is lookt on by God as a thief; the goods notwith&s;tanding remain in the &s;ame place, and po&s;se&s;&s;ion of the Owner, nor doth God challenge them as Felons goods; no change made on them; Wherever then there is a Morall,</HI> i. e. <HI>a Legall change, there is a Tran&s;ient act, and this being in Ju&s;tification a Tran&s;ient act is nece&s;&s;arily required to this change. Now I yield Mr.</HI> Baxter <HI>that [no Tran&s;ient act is immediatly termined in a Relation, and the immediate effect of Gods Ju&s;tification or Re|mi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins, mu&s;t be &s;omewhat Really wrought, either upon the &s;inner, or &s;omewhat el&s;e for him.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="33" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 33.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> I Will not &s;tand to open any weakne&s;&s;es or impertinencies in this Se|ction, as long as the &s;cope is &s;ound, le&s;t I &s;hew my &s;elf as quarrel&s;ome as you.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="34" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 34.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. THe &s;econd Que&s;tion is, What is this? and &s;o what the Tran&s;ient act is? Mr.</HI> Baxter <HI>&s;aith, [1. That the pa&s;&s;ing the grant of the New Covenant, or the promulgation of it, is a Tran&s;ient act. 2. So may the continuance of it al&s;o be. 3. This Law or Grant hath a Moral improper action, whereby it may be &s;aid to pardon or ju&s;tifie, which properly is but virtuall ju&s;tifying. 4. By this grant 1. God doth give us the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t to be ours when we believe. 2. And di&s;ableth the Law t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">
<PB N="96" REF="59"> oblige us to puni&s;hment or Condemnation. 3. Which Reall foundations being thus laid, our Relations of Ju&s;tified and Pardoned in Title of Law do nece&s;&s;arily fol|low.</HI>]</P>
<P><HI>I cannot per&s;wade my &s;elf to leave my old Doctors to follow Mr.</HI> Baxter, <HI>for any thing he hath &s;aid in all this. Let the promulgation of the New Covenant fir&s;t and &s;till be a tran&s;ient act; this Covenant hath an odde empty Morall action in ju&s;tifying us when we believe; and by the promulgation of this Covenant God doth as improperly give us the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Christ, and di&s;able the Law to condemn us, as &s;hall appear by con&s;idering that all here &s;poken of actions, is but of actions improperly &s;o called, and &s;uch as cannot &s;uffice to make a Reall effect.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="34" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 34.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> VVHo your old Doctors are is utterly unknown to me; for I remember not that I have ever read any Doctor before you that goeth your way (if I know it) and am in hope that I never &s;hall reade any &s;uch hereafter. For your not following me, as I have not been very eager to obtrude my opinions on any, &s;o if it be no more for your own advantage then mine, I am not &s;o de&s;irous of your company, but that I can be without it. Now to the matter.</P>
<P>I am very glad that I am come to a Controver&s;ie more ea&s;ie and more u&s;efull then that which you made and &s;tuck in &s;o long before. As for my opinion about the nature of Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;in, I have had occa&s;ion to view and review it &s;ince the writing of my Aphori&s;mes, and have received Animadver&s;ions on this very Point of another nature then are the&s;e of Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s, both for Learning, Sobriety, and Exactne&s;s of Judgement; and upon my mo&s;t faithfull and impartial peru&s;al of all, I mu&s;t needs profe&s;s my &s;elf much more &s;atisfied in my fir&s;t opinion, and confident of its verity, then I was before: And &s;ome Learned men (as mo&s;t <HI>England</HI> hath) do fully con&s;ent to it, and confirm it in their Animadver&s;ions; and I remember none of the re&s;t (&s;ave the fir&s;t-intimated Reverend Learned Brother) that doth contradict it, of all tho&s;e Judicious excellent men that have vouch&s;afed me their private Animadver&s;ions. And even he doth confe&s;s all that action of the Law and change made by it, which I mention, as being a known truth beyond Controver&s;ie; only he thinketh that the name of Ju&s;tification is to be given to no act but a Judicial Sentence, which I call, the mo&s;t perfect &s;ort of Ju&s;tification. Indeed I am a&s;hamed that I &s;pake &s;o &s;trangely of &s;o ea&s;ie and familiar a Truth, as if it had been &s;ome new di&s;covery, when all that are ver&s;t in Politicks and Laws may di&s;cern it to be &s;o obvious: but the rea&s;on was, that I had not read any thing of it in Divines as to our pre&s;ent ca&s;e.</P>
<P>Before I come to Mr. <HI>K.</HI> let me tell the Reader my thoughts of Remi&s;&s;ion more fully. Pardon actively taken is an act of God. Pa&s;&s;ive pardon is the <HI>terminus</HI> or effect of that act. Pardon Active, is 1. Mentall, in a more imperfect, dimi|nute, and le&s;s-proper &s;en&s;e called Pardon: As when a Prince doth pardon a tray|tour &s;ecretly in his own thoughts and re&s;olution only. This is applied to God &s;peaking after the manner of men (in which manner we are nece&s;&s;itated to &s;peak of God:) and it is not (as Mr. <HI>K.</HI> imagineth) to be conceived of by us as being the &s;ame with his Decree <HI>de futuro</HI> (&s;o far as we may conceive of Gods Immanent acts as divers:) though it be but the &s;ame act that receiveth the&s;e divers denomi|nations
<PB N="97" REF="59"> from&punc; the diver&s;ity of the objects. 2. The &s;econd Active Pardon is Sig|nal, Legal and Con&s;titutive; which by &s;ignifying Gods Will, doth Legally con|&s;titute us pardoned, by cau&s;ing our <HI>Jus ad Impunitatem vel Liberationem, i. e.</HI> by di&s;&s;olving the Obligation to puni&s;hment, or by taking away guilt. The action or cau&s;ation of this pardon, is but &s;uch as is that of every <HI>Fundamentum</HI> in cau&s;ing its Relation. 3. Pardon taken actively al&s;o may &s;ignifie the very Grant of the act of Pardon (whether particular or general, ab&s;olute or conditional) that is, the act of Legi&s;lation (in our ca&s;e) whereby the Law of Grace is formed, as the remitting In&s;trument. This goes before that forementioned; as being the cau|&s;ing of that <HI>Fundamentum,</HI> which in time cau&s;eth the Relation afore&s;aid. 4. The Promulgation or Proclamation of this Law of Grace, or Act of Oblivion, may al&s;o be called Pardon. This Legal pardon is an Act of God as <HI>Rector &s;upra Leges</HI> in re&s;pect to the old Law who&s;e Obligation it di&s;&s;olveth; and it is the Act of God as Legi&s;lator in re&s;pect of the Law of Grace which di&s;&s;olveth the Obligation of the Law of Works.</P>
<P>Accordingly Pardon in a Pa&s;&s;ive &s;en&s;e, is taken as many waies. 1. With men for the effects of mentall pardon in the heart and minde. 2. For the <HI>Jus ad Im|punitatem,</HI> or the Di&s;&s;olution of the Obligation to puni&s;hment, cau&s;ed by the &s;e|cond act. 3. For the Law of Grace, or the promi&s;e it &s;elf. And &s;o the pardon|ing In&s;trument of a King, is commonly called a Pardon. 4. For the hopefull Relation or &s;tate that he is in that hath pardon offered him on very ea&s;ie and rea|&s;onable terms (as for the Acceptance with thanks.) I think all the&s;e &s;en&s;es the word is u&s;ed in the Scriptures; I am &s;ure in Writers and common &s;peech it is &s;o. Now it is ea&s;ie to di&s;cern that all the re&s;t are but imperfect pardons, and &s;o called in a diminute &s;en&s;e, except only the &s;econd, which is the full and proper pardon. 2. All this I &s;peak of Pardon in Law &s;en&s;e, the &s;ame with that which I call Ju&s;tification con&s;titutive (or but notionally differing:) But be&s;ides all this there is Pardon and Ju&s;tification <HI>per &s;ententiam Judicis,</HI> which the&s;e are but the means to, and which is the mo&s;t perfect of all. But note that as the word Ju&s;tifi|cation is mo&s;t proper to [the &s;entence:] So the word [<HI>Pardon</HI>] is mo&s;t proper to the Civil or Legal act that goes before Judgement. 3. And as God pardoneth 1. as <HI>Rector &s;upra Leges</HI> by Donation and a new Law, 2. and as Judge by &s;en|tence: &s;o 3. al&s;o as the executor of Law and &s;entence or his Will: And &s;o par|doning is but Not-puni&s;hing. Where note 1. That this &s;ometime may be be|fore and without the fir&s;t, by meer providence: and &s;o wicked men are pardoned without a promi&s;e, in &s;uch mea&s;ure as God abateth and forbeareth puni&s;hing them. 2. That in our ca&s;e this executive pardon <HI>quoad initium</HI> pre&s;uppo&s;eth the fir&s;t Legal pardon, and <HI>quoad complementum</HI> it pre&s;uppo&s;eth the &s;entential ab&s;olu|tion. 3. Note that this &s;ort of pardon hath divers degrees, according to the de|grees of any due penalty which&punc; is remitted: and &s;o may alter. So that in a word, all pardon is of one of the&s;e three &s;orts. 1. By God as Author of the New Cove|nant, giving Right to Impunity. 2. By God as Judge ab&s;olving. 3. By God as executing.</P>
<P>All this being premi&s;ed our que&s;tion is, which of the&s;e it is that Scripture a|&s;cribeth to Faith, and is called Remi&s;&s;ion, or Believing, or Ju&s;tification by Faith? Some &s;ay, It is only Gods mental pardon: Some &s;ay, It is none of the&s;e, but a Declaration to the Angels in heaven, who is Ju&s;t. Some &s;ay, It is none of the&s;e, but a Manife&s;tation to our con&s;ciences (as &s;ome &s;peak) or a &s;entence of God in our hearts (as others &s;peak.) Some &s;ay, It is <HI>ip&s;a Impunitas,</HI> or <HI>non Punire</HI> (as
<PB N="98" REF="60"> <HI>Twi&s;&s;e</HI> &s;ometime, or <HI>nolle Punire,</HI> as other times.) I think it is the Di&s;&s;olving of the obligation to puni&s;hment, or the giving us a <HI>Jus ad liberationem vel ad impuni|tatem,</HI> or Gods remitting his <HI>Jus puniendi:</HI> Where the immediate <HI>terminus</HI> is the Di&s;&s;olution of the obligation, or our <HI>Debitum liberationis, vel jus ad impunitatem:</HI> and the remote <HI>terminus</HI> (which is yet connoted in the term Pardon, as e&s;&s;entially nece&s;&s;ary) is Impunity it &s;elf, or actual liberation from puni&s;hment, or <HI>non|punire.</HI> And withall, as in man a mentall Remi&s;&s;ion goes before the actual Sig|nal, Legal Remi&s;&s;ion, &s;o there is in God, a <HI>Nolle punire,</HI> and after the manner of men, it may be a&s;cribed to God, as then beginning when the Law remitteth, and the &s;inner is a capable &s;ubject, becau&s;e it cannot be denominated Remi&s;&s;ion, but by connotation of the object, and that mu&s;t be, when there is an object fit: And &s;o after the manner of men, we attribute it to God, as an act which in time he is moved to by an Impul&s;ive cau&s;e, <HI>viz.</HI> the Satisfaction and Merits of Chri&s;t: though &s;trictly we u&s;e to &s;ay, there is nothing <HI>ab extra</HI> can be an impul&s;ive cau&s;e to God: Much more then this I have &s;aid for explication of this Point in pri|vate Papers to &s;ome Learned Friends; but this may &s;uffice for the right under|&s;tanding of what here pa&s;&s;eth between Mr. <HI>K.</HI> and me. And now I proceed to his words.</P>
<P N="1">1. He acknowledgeth the Promulgation of the New Covenant to be a Tran|&s;ient act: It is the &s;ame In&s;trument of God that is called his Covenant and his Law here. And as it is a Law, the term [Promulgation] doth mo&s;t fitly agree to it. And I doubt not but either Mr. <HI>K.</HI> implieth Legi&s;lation (perhaps he mi|&s;takes the terms for equipollent) or at lea&s;t he will as freely acknowledge that a Tran&s;ient act. But he &s;aith, 1. That [this Covenant hath an odde empty mo|rall action.] Let any man that reades the&s;e words of this Learned man, judge whether I be not excu&s;able for that cen&s;ure in the Preface to the Appendix of my Book of Bapti&s;m! A School Divine and a Chair man, and know no more the nature of a Law, Covenant, or any Legal In&s;trument! A Divine, and an <HI>Ari|&s;tarchus,</HI> and yet dare to &s;peak &s;uch words of all the holy Laws and Covenants of God! Why what doth this man &s;tudy and preach, that thinks &s;o ba&s;ely of Gods Laws? The Moral action of the Law of Grace or Te&s;tament of Chri&s;t he calleth [an odde empty Moral action:] Yet its like he knows that Commonwealths are chiefly upheld and ordered by Laws, Contracts, Conveyances, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and con&s;e|quently by actions of the &s;ame nature. The whole body of the Commonwealth and each member of it, do hold their E&s;tates, Liberties and Lives by &s;uch odde empty actions. Take away the odde empty Moral action of Laws, Te&s;taments, Obligations, Deeds of Sale, Lea&s;es, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and what is a Commonwealth, and what a Rector, and what &s;ecurity have you of any thing you po&s;&s;e&s;s? or what or|derly commerce among men? His next a&s;&s;ertion is as de&s;perate as the former, that [by the promulgation of this Covenant, God doth as improperly give us the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t, or di&s;able the Law to condemn us.] Could any words (not certainly de&s;tructive to Chri&s;tianity it &s;elf) have fallen from this Learned man more unworthy a Divine? Doth not the Te&s;tament of the Lord Je&s;us properly convey the Legacy? Doth not Gods Deed of gift of Chri&s;t and his Righteou&s;ne&s;s to us, properly convey? and doth not God properly Give thereby? Why how can a more proper way of Giving be imaginable? 1. If a man do pro|perly give, by a Te&s;tament or Deed of Gift, then &s;o doth God: But a man doth, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 2. Where there is a plain &s;ignification of the Will of the Donor to confer thereby the benefit on the Receiver, there is a proper Giving:
<PB N="99" REF="60"> But in the Go&s;pel-promi&s;e or Te&s;tament of Chri&s;t there is &s;uch a &s;ignification of the Donors Will: Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Doth not an Act of Oblivion or Pardon pro|perly give pardon to all that it pardoneth? Doth not any Act of Grace give the favours expre&s;&s;ed?</P>
<P N="2">2. And where he &s;aith, that [God doth hereby as improperly di&s;able the Law to condemn us&punc;] I Reply. 1. Nothing in the world can more properly di&s;able the Law from effectual condemning us, that is, &s;o as to procure &s;entence and exe|cution, then a general Act of pardon, or then the new Law doth, which is in its very nature <HI>Lex Remedians, &amp; obligationem ad paenam prioris di&s;&s;olvens.</HI> Though &s;till the Law as to its &s;en&s;e is the &s;ame, and therefore doth virtually condemn till the &s;aid di&s;&s;olution. How can the Law of the Land be more di&s;abled from effe|ctual condemning all Traytors, for what is pa&s;t, then by an Act of Oblivion, or a particular pardon under the Soveraigns Hand and Seal? 2. Yea this Learn|ed man di&s;putes again&s;t the very formall nature and definition of a pardon: which is to be <HI>an Act of the Rector freeing the guilty from puni&s;hment by di&s;&s;olving the obli|gation.</HI> And certainly as the obligation it &s;elf is one of the&s;e [odde, empty Moral actions,] &s;o mu&s;t the di&s;&s;olution of it needs be. Indeed <HI>Theologus e&s;t Juri&s;con&s;ultus Chri&s;tianus,</HI> a Chri&s;tian Lawyer: and what a Lawyer he is that knows not the nature, u&s;e and force of Laws, is ea&s;ie to be judged. I could wi&s;h men would lay by their over-bold enquiries into Gods Decrees and other Immanent acts, or at lea&s;t, their vain pretendings to a knowledge which they never had of them, and &s;tudy this intelligible and nece&s;&s;ary part of Theology a little more.</P>
<P>But Mr. <HI>K.</HI> tels us that he will make all this &s;trange doctrine [appear:] and how? Why [by con&s;idering that all here &s;poken of actions, is but of actions improperly &s;o called, and &s;uch as cannot &s;uffice to make a real effect.] <HI>Rep.</HI> Do you oppo&s;e [Real] to [feigned or nominal] or to [Relative?] If the former, it is &s;uch doctrine as I dare &s;ay, no Divine will believe, no Lawyer, no under&s;tanding member of a Commonwealth, and I think, no Chri&s;tian, that under&s;tandeth what you &s;ay. Think not the words ra&s;h, for I think him not fit to be accounted a Divine, no nor a Chri&s;tian (&s;uppo&s;ing him to under&s;tand the matter) that will or dare main|tain, That neither the cur&s;e of the Law, or threatning of the new Law, whereby &s;o many are adjudged to Hell, nor yet the Te&s;tament, Covenant, Promi&s;e of the Go&s;pel, whereby Chri&s;t and his Benefits, Ju&s;tification, Adoption, Salvation (<HI>quoad Jus</HI>) are given, do any of them make a true change? But if you oppo&s;e [Real] to [Relative,] then I mu&s;t tell you, that [Remi&s;&s;ion and Ju&s;tification Pa&s;&s;ive] are no Real effects, but Relative; which I had thought you need not have been told. The act of Legi&s;lation and Promulgation makes a real effect; but the <HI>Fundamentum</HI> once laid, cau&s;eth but a relation. Do not you know that the very formal nature of all morality is Relative? What el&s;e is <HI>Aequum, Ju&s;tum, Me|ritum, Debitum, Jus,</HI> yea <HI>bonum morale, &amp; malum,</HI> &amp;c?</P>
<P>Again I mu&s;t tell you, that you do not well to mention <HI>Promulgation</HI> alone, when I &s;poke of Enacting, or Granting, or Legi&s;lation, before Promulgation. I hope you take not both the&s;e for one. Nay indeed Promulgation is proper to a Law as it is obligatory to the &s;ubject, and &s;o is nece&s;&s;ary after Legi&s;lation, <HI>ad actualem obligationem:</HI> but a Law of Grace which doth conferre benefits, and whereby the Legi&s;lator doth, as it were, oblige him&s;elf, may be in force in &s;ome degree, without a Promulgation: becau&s;e a man may be made capable of Right to Be|nefit without his knowledge, though he cannot be obliged to duty without his knowledge, except when he is Ignorant through his own fault.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="35" TYPE="section">
<PB N="100" REF="61">
<HEAD>&sect; 35.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K FOr fir&s;t, The Covenant Ju&s;tifies us, not by any act, but meerly by the tenour of it, as a Law, not Agent, and many things in this kinde are &s;aid to d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, when there, I wis, is no action at all:</HI> Quantitas facit quantum; <HI>I hope no Action, it doth it</HI> formaliter, <HI>not</HI> efficienter: Paternitas facit patrem; <HI>I know no Action that ever was a&s;cribed to Relation, it doth it</HI> formaliter, <HI>not</HI> efficienter: <HI>and &s;o doth the Covenant not Ju&s;tifie a Believer by any Act, let Mr.</HI> Baxter <HI>mince it as he will,</HI> a mo|ral improper Action, <HI>but as his</HI> great Metaphy&s;ical Rabbies <HI>would speak</HI> aptitudina|liter, <HI>and this but</HI> extrin&s;ec&egrave; <HI>too; for</HI> foedus non facit Ju&s;tum <HI>of it &s;elf, but it mu&s;t be beholden to many intervenient Cau&s;es.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="35" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 35.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. THanks to Inadvertency (as I &s;uppo&s;e) it is here acknowledged that the Covenant doth Ju&s;tifie, and that as a Law, which i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> it do, we &s;hall &s;ee anon whether it can be any other way then that which I affirm. 2. But little thanks is due to this Authour from the friends of Truth, for his di&s;|covery of the way of the Covenants Ju&s;tifying. [It is (&s;aith he) by the Te|nour of it, as a Law:] True: How el&s;e &s;hould it be? [but not Agent] Not by a Phy&s;ical proper Action: that's true: But have Laws, Te&s;taments, Cove|nants, Grants, Pardons, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> no Moral Action? Or is this Moral &s;o contempti|ble a matter, that a Learned Divine &s;hould make Nothing of it? When all mens e&s;tates and lives depend on it here, and all mens Salvation or Damnation hereaf|ter. But how is it then that the New Covenant Ju&s;tifies? why he thus proceeds [<HI>Quantitas facit quantum;</HI> I hope no Action: it doth it <HI>formaliter,</HI> not <HI>efficienter: Paternitas facit patrem&punc;</HI> I know no Action that ever was a&s;cribed to Relation, it doth it <HI>formaliter,</HI> not <HI>efficienter.</HI>] Reply. 1. I though that [<HI>facere</HI>] had been as improperly applied to a formal Cau&s;ation, as [<HI>Agere</HI>] and that I may, at lea&s;t, as fairly do the later, as you the former. 2. If this Learned man do indeed think that the Covenant doth <HI>formaliter</HI> Ju&s;tifie, as <HI>Quantitas facit quantum, &amp; paternitas patrem,</HI> I &s;hall the le&s;s repent that I was not his Pupil: And if I knew who be his old Doctors that he here &s;peaks of, I would never read them, if they be no better in the re&s;t: any, I would take heed of looking into them, le&s;t they had a power of fa&s;cination: What is the <HI>Matter</HI> that the Covenant doth Inform? Gods Act, or mans Quality, Act, or what? What matter doth it concurre with to con&s;ti|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ute the <HI>Compo&s;itum?</HI> Is not <HI>Ju&s;titia</HI> that which formally maketh Ju&s;t? Is the Cove|nant the Relation of <HI>Ju&s;t</HI> in the Ab&s;tract? Why then doth not the denomination follow the form? Is it the Covenant <HI>quod explicat, quid &s;it Ju&s;tificatus?</HI> Or by which <HI>Ju&s;tus e&s;t id quod e&s;t?</HI> But let us make the be&s;t con&s;truction imaginable of M^r <HI>K</HI>'s words, and &s;uppo&s;e that he would only prove the Negative [what way it is by which the Covenant ju&s;tifieth not, <HI>viz.</HI> not <HI>efficienter</HI>] and not [what way it doth Ju&s;tifie, <HI>viz. formaliter</HI>] yet I &s;hould demand, 1. What is then the u&s;e or purpo&s;e of his In&s;tan|ces, or fore-going words? 2. What the better are we for his di&s;cour&s;e, if he tell us not what way it is? 3. What Cau&s;e will he make it if not an efficient? Will he &s;ay it is either Material or Final? I think not. But he &s;aith, that [the Cove|nant doth not Ju&s;tifie a Believer by any Act, let Mr. <HI>B.</HI> mince it as he will, a Mo|ral Improper Action, but as his great Metaphy&s;ical Rabbies would &s;peak, <HI>aptitu|dinaliter,</HI> and this but <HI>extrin&s;ec&egrave;</HI> too.] Reply. What Reader is much the wi&s;er
<PB N="101" REF="61"> for this an&s;wer? Would you know whether <HI>Foedus facit Ju&s;tum, ut forma, vel ut efficiens?</HI> Why Mr. <HI>K.</HI> telleth you, it doth it but <HI>aptitudinaliter?</HI> If &s;o, then cer|tainly, not <HI>ut forma:</HI> for <HI>forma aptitudinalis faciens informatum,</HI> is a &s;trange crea|ture. It mu&s;t then be matter or efficient. I would not think &s;o hardly of Mr. <HI>K.</HI> as to imagine that he takes it for a Material Cau&s;e; much le&s;s that he takes it for <HI>Materia aptitudinalis Ju&s;tificationis actualis.</HI> I hope &s;uch doctrine never dropt from his Chair. What is left then, but that it be an efficient. And if &s;o, is not all efficiency by Action of one &s;ort or other? And moreover, how comes <HI>Efficiens tan|tum Aptitudinalis,</HI> to be <HI>Efficiens Actualis?</HI> And if not <HI>Actualis,</HI> how comes the Effect to be produced, <HI>viz.</HI> The Believer to be Ju&s;tified? But I dare not impute this <HI>non</HI>-&s;en&s;e to Mr. <HI>K.</HI> Perhaps he takes the Covenant to be no Cau&s;e at all of Ju&s;tification? But that will not hold neither? For he plainly &s;aith, that [the Covenant ju&s;tifieth] twice here together. And &s;ure <HI>Ju&s;tifying</HI> &s;ig|nifieth &s;ome Cau&s;ation.</P>
<P>Yet the amu&s;eth me more by adding [and this but <HI>extrin&s;ec&egrave;</HI> too.] Why, who is it that hath found out another Ju&s;tifying efficient, But onely the extrin&s;ecal? By this I &s;ee he takes it not for Matter or Form; for they are not extrin&s;ecal. But is not the Law, the Jury, the Advocate, the Judge, each of them an extrin&s;ecal efficient in ju&s;tifying every man that is ju&s;tified <HI>in &s;oro humano?</HI> It may be Mr. <HI>K.</HI> hath re&s;pect to the ju&s;tification of Con&s;cience: But doth he think that there are not extrin&s;ick efficienrs, that do more properly and more nobly ju&s;tifie then our con&s;ciences do? Then let man be his own pardoner and ju&s;tifier, and be prefer|red before the bloud of Chri&s;t, the Law, the Advoeate, and the Judge of Be|lievers. I think it is no di&s;paragement to our Glorious Judge, that he will ju&s;ti|fie us extrin&s;ecally. Con&s;cience which ju&s;tifieth (in &s;ome &s;en&s;e) intrin&s;ecally, doth it by &s;o low an Act, by &s;o &s;mall Authority, that it is very doubtfull whether it be fit to call that Act either Con&s;titutive or &s;entential Ju&s;ti|fying, &s;o great is the Impropriety: (Of which I have &s;poke more fully el&s;where.)</P>
<P>If Mr. <HI>K.</HI> had named &s;ome of tho&s;e Metaphy&s;ical Rabbies, and been guilty of naming as it were the Chapter and Ver&s;e (of which crime he accu&s;eth me) I &s;hould the better have known whether he &s;ay true or fal&s;e, when he tels us that they would &s;ay the Covenant ju&s;tifieth <HI>aptitudinaliter,</HI> and not by any act. Its true that the Covenant ju&s;tifieth, <HI>&V;t &s;ignum voluntatis Divinae per hoc Peccata re|mittentis:</HI> And had he &s;aid that it is <HI>Signum Aptitudinale</HI> to men before they be|lieve, and <HI>Signam Actuale</HI> after, there had been &s;ome &s;en&s;e in his words, though yet they had been defective of Truth or Fitne&s;s: For they are <HI>&s;ignum actuale</HI> to mil|lions of the unju&s;tified, though not <HI>&s;ignum actualiter Justificans.</HI> But it is Believers that are actually ju&s;tified, of whom he &s;peaks expre&s;ly: and therefore he hath &s;ome other meaning, what ever it is.</P>
<P>Yet if Mr <HI>K.</HI> had denied to the Covenant in ju&s;tifying, a proper Phy&s;ical act only, we were agreed; But he denieth [an improper moral action] as he tels me, I mince it: which if I &s;hould do, I &s;hould expect to be told, that I were a very &s;ingular man indeed: For I doubt not but this Learned man hath read many a large Volume of Politicks, and particularly <HI>de Legibus,</HI> and there read their Di&s;|cour&s;es <HI>de Legum acttonibus,</HI> viz. <HI>praecipere, prohibere, praemiare, punire:</HI> I doubt not but he hath read many a large Volume of the Civil Law in &s;pecial, and there|in of the Nature of Obligations of all &s;orts: (For I would not &s;uppo&s;e him de|fective in his reading of any thing.) And after all this for &s;o Orthodox a man to deny [a Moral improper action] to Gods Laws, and &s;o to all Laws, and
<PB N="102" REF="62"> therein differ from all the Lawyers and Divines that ever the world knew (&s;o farre as I can learn) is &s;ingularity indeed! Yea and never yet to write one Volume of his Rea&s;ons again&s;t all the world, that we might be undeceived? Seriou&s;ly I wonder what he thinks of Gods Laws, Covenants, Promi&s;es, Te&s;tament, and how he preacheth them, yea or believeth them, or what work they have on his &s;oul, who takes them to have no Moral improper Action? I &s;hould think &s;uch a <HI>merus Phy&s;icus</HI> were a &s;trange man to make a Divine. But let us hear his rea&s;on: [For <HI>Foedus non facit ju&s;tum</HI> of it &s;elf, but it mu&s;t be beholden to many interveni|ent Cau&s;es] Reply. 1. It &s;eems to be here granted that <HI>Foedus facit ju&s;tum inter|venientibus alijs Cau&s;is:</HI> And if &s;o, it is an efficient; and if &s;o it hath &s;ome kinde of Action. 2. <HI>Negatur &s;equela:</HI> What if the Covenant ju&s;tifie not <HI>ni&s;i intervenientibus aliis quibu&s;dam Cau&s;is?</HI> Doth it thence follow that it hath no moral Action? And we mu&s;t &s;peak <HI>non</HI> &s;en&s;e to &s;ay, that it ju&s;tifieth but <HI>Aptitudinaliter?</HI> 3. I deny that there is any other Cau&s;e doth intervene between the Covenant, and the Effect. A Condition on mans part mu&s;t be performed before the Law or Covenant of Grace will <HI>Actu Cau&s;are,</HI> i. e. <HI>Ju&s;tificare.</HI> And this Condition hath its Cau&s;es: But Remi&s;&s;ion and Ju&s;tification have no intervening Cau&s;es.</P>
<P>I have in An&s;wer to other Reverend Brethren &s;o fully and di&s;tinctly laid down my own thoughts of this whole bu&s;ine&s;s, <HI>viz.</HI> of the &s;everal &s;orts of Righteou&s;|ne&s;s, and of the nature of each, and the Cau&s;es, that I will &s;uppo&s;e I may be excu&s;ed that I do it not here. Only I may tell Mr. <HI>K.</HI> that I take Righteou&s;ne&s;s as now in Que&s;tion, to be a Relation (whether predicamental or Tran&s;cendental, we will not now di&s;pute; but I &s;uppo&s;e it is the later.) And as Relation is &s;o &s;mall or low a Being, that it is by &s;ome reckoned between <HI>Ens &amp; Nihil,</HI> &s;o the way of its production mu&s;t be an&s;werable; and mu&s;t be by as low a kinde of Action. Yet if it have any kinde of Being at all, it mu&s;t have &s;ome Cau&s;e, and tha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> mu&s;t have &s;ome Action. And therefore Rabbi <HI>Keckerman</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Fundamentum idem &s;ig|nificat quod Efficiens; Terminus idem quod finis.</HI> I &s;uppo&s;e Mr. <HI>K.</HI> will acknowledge the Cau&s;ation of procatarcktick Cau&s;es, <HI>objectum, occa&s;io, meritum:</HI> and yet will finde the&s;e efficients to have but an improper Action (at lea&s;t &s;ome of them) as well the <HI>Fundamentum</HI> hath in cau&s;ing a Relation. Be&s;ides all this, it is found no ea&s;ie matter to reduce all Politicall Notions to the Notions of Logick or Metaphy&s;icks; and &s;ome think that when we &s;peak of Politicks, we mu&s;t &s;peak in the terms of Politicks, and that it is an unfit or impo&s;&s;ible attempt to &s;peak there in the &s;trict language of Logicians, though I am not of their minde in the later.</P>
<P>But &s;uppo&s;e that I had granted all that Mr. <HI>K.</HI> hath hitherto &s;aid: What is it to that which he &s;hou<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d prove? He undertakes to prove, 1. That the Covenants Action (as I call it) is [an odde, empty, Moral Action] and &s;o cannot make this Effect: But he hath not yet proved, that the Relation of our Righteou&s;ne&s;s may not Re&s;ult from the Covenant as its <HI>Fundamentum,</HI> though without a proper Action; as &s;oon as the Condition is performed on our parts to make us fit Sub|jects. 2. He undertakes to prove, that [by the Promulgation of this Covenant God doth as improperly give us the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t, and di&s;able the Law to condemn us, becau&s;e all here &s;poken of Actions, is but of Actions improperly &s;o called] But doth he indeed think that Legi&s;lation, or Promulgation, or Cove|nant making is but Improperly called Action? If he do, I will not wa&s;te time in &s;uch a work as the Confuting him is.</P>
<PB N="103" REF="62">
<P>La&s;tly, If his Argument be good [We are not properly ju&s;tified by an Action improperly called Action: But the Action of the Covenant is Improperly called Action: Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>] then it will follow that we are not properly Ju&s;tified by any Action of God. For it is generally held, that [Action] is not properly ap|plied to God, but Analogically, and after the manner of the creature. I think this fir&s;t Argument of Mr. <HI>K.</HI> de&s;erves no more an&s;wer.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="36" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 36.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. 2. <HI>GOd is not properly &s;ate to Ju&s;tifie us by this tran&s;ient Act of the Cove|nant: For either he Ju&s;tifies all, or only &s;ome. Not all: for all I hope are not ju&s;tified: not &s;ome more then others; for the N<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">w Covenant makes no difference of it &s;elf: and &s;o God ju&s;tifieth none by it.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="36" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 36.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. EIther you mean, that [it is not by the Tran&s;ient act Alone that God Ju&s;tifies] or [not by it at all.] If the former, I confe&s;&s;e it, becau&s;e the Moral Act which followeth doth intervene to the production of the Effect. It is not by the tran&s;ient Act of Generation <HI>alone,</HI> that <HI>Pater cau&s;at filiationem.</HI> But it &s;eems you take it in the later &s;en&s;e, and &s;o it is fal&s;e. Though the <HI>Fundamentum</HI> do <HI>&s;uo modo Cau&s;are Relationem, idque immediate,</HI> yet that Act which Cau&s;eth the <HI>Fundamentum,</HI> doth properly Cau&s;e the Relati|on too.</P>
<P N="2">2. I &s;eriou&s;ly profe&s;s that it &s;eems to me a very &s;ad Ca&s;e, that any man that is called a Divine, or a Chri&s;tian &s;hould argue, and that &s;o weakly, and &s;o wilfully again&s;t all the efficacy of Gods Te&s;tament, Law or Covenant in conveying to us the &s;aving Relative benefits of Chri&s;t! If it were only (as &s;ome Divines that I deal with) that he acknowledged the thing, and denied onely the fitne&s;s of the Name of Ju&s;tifying to the Act of the Covenant, it were a &s;maller matter: But it is Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;in it &s;elf; the giving us Chri&s;ts Righteou&s;ne&s;s, the di&s;abling the Law to condemn us, that he &s;peaks of, as you may &s;ee before: and &s;o he here dares to conclude, That God ju&s;tifies none by it. To this lamentable <HI>Dilemma</HI> here brought for proof, I &s;ay, 1. <HI>Conditionally</HI> God Ju&s;tifieth <HI>All</HI> by his Cove|nant, at lea&s;t All to whom it is Revealed. <HI>Actually</HI> he Ju&s;tifieth only them that have the Condition. I oppo&s;e <HI>Actually</HI> to <HI>Conditionally,</HI> becau&s;e that while it is but <HI>Conditional,</HI> it is not <HI>Actual</HI> in Law &s;en&s;e, that is, Effectual, though it is <HI>in Actu,</HI> &s;o farre done as it is: And indeed it is not in &s;trict &s;en&s;e that a man is cal|led, Ju&s;tified, while it is but Conditional: though yet it is a common phra&s;e, becau&s;e the Agent hath done it <HI>quantum in &s;e,</HI> when the Condition is but Accep|tance. 2. God doth Ju&s;tifie &s;ome more then others by his Covenant, <HI>viz.</HI> Be|lievers more then Unbelievers: This me thinks a Divine &s;hould not have denied. But he hath rea&s;on for his denial: and what's that? Why, he &s;aith [for the New Covenant makes no difference of it &s;elf.] A &s;trong Rea&s;on: It doth it not of it &s;elf: Therefore it doth it not at all. But I Reply: There is a two-fold difference made between men in the&s;e &s;piritual changes. The fir&s;t is Real, when one that was an Infidel is made a Believer: and this is done by the Spirit and Word ordi|narily; and it is but to prepare men to be fit objects for the ju&s;tifying Act: The &s;econd is Relative, when we are Pardoned, Ju&s;tified, Adopted, and have a Right
<PB N="104" REF="63"> given us to other Benefits: This difference the Covenant makes of it &s;elf, the former preparatory difference being before made. To &s;ay, the Cove|nant makes not the fir&s;t Real difference; Therefore it makes no difference, is ill arguing.</P>
<P>I would de&s;ire the Reader to try how Mr. K's argument will fit the Laws or Conveyances of men. If a Parent bequeath to each of his children an hundred pound on Condition they marry, to become due at the day of Marriage; accord|ing to Mr. K. you may argue thus: Either this Te&s;tament Giveth the Legacy to All, or to None: Not to All, if All marry not: Not to &s;ome above others: for the Te&s;tament of it &s;elf makes no difference: Therefore it Giveth it to none. Or if a King give out a Pardon, or pa&s;&s;e an Act of Pardon or Oblivion for all Traitors that are up in arms again&s;t him, on Condition that they lay down arms, and Accept the pardon: Mr. K. would argue, it &s;eems thus: Either this Act pardoneth All, or Some: Not All: for All will not lay down Armes, and Accept it: Not Some onely; for the act makes no difference of it &s;elf: Therefore it pardoneth none. See what an Interpreters hand the Go&s;pel is fallen into at <HI>Bli&s;land!</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="37" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 37.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. 3. <HI>MAn &s;hall properly be &s;aid to Ju&s;tifie him&s;elf (a thing which Mr.</HI> Baxter <HI>looks on, as well he may, as</HI> Mon&s;trum horendum) <HI>For where there is a promi&s;e of a reward made to All, upon a Condition of performing &s;uch a &s;ervice, he that obtains the reward, gets it by his own &s;ervice; without which the promi&s;e would have brought him never the nearer to the reward: and thus a man wi&s;ely Ju&s;tifies him&s;elf by Believing, and more a great deal then God doth Ju&s;tifie him by his Promulgation of the New Covenant, which would have left him in his old Condi|tion had he not better provided for him&s;elf by Believing, then the Covenant did by Promi&s;ing.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="37" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 37.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> O How much have I been too blame, in my indignation again&s;t poor ignorant Chri&s;tians, for taking up the ab&s;urde&s;t Antinomian fancies &s;o ea&s;ily! When even &s;uch Divines as this &s;hall u&s;e &s;uch rea&s;oning as I here finde!</P>
<P N="1">1. I deny the Con&s;equence, as being <HI>verba &s;omniantis.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. I think, I &s;hall anon &s;hew, that him&s;elf is undeniably guilty of this Con|&s;equence, which here is called <HI>Mon&s;trum horrendum.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. For his rea&s;on, 1. Its pity that he cannot di&s;tingui&s;h between a Cau&s;e and a meer Condition: Where he &s;aith [he that obtains the reward gets it by his &s;er|vice] I &s;ay, it is here <HI>By it,</HI> as by a Condition <HI>&s;ine qua non,</HI> but not By it, as by a Cau&s;e. 2. And its pity that any Divine &s;hould not di&s;tingui&s;h between &s;ervice and &s;ervice. There is a &s;ervice which is <HI>operari,</HI> or &s;ome way profitable to him that we perform it to; which therefore may oblige by commutative Ju&s;tice to re|ward us: and here the Reward is not of Grace, but Debt; and the Work is a Meritorious Cau&s;e, properly &s;o called. There is a Work which is a Means of Moral-natural Nece&s;&s;ity (on terms of Rea&s;on and common hone&s;ty) to our or|derly participation of a Benefit freely Given: As if a Traitor &s;hall have a par|don
<PB N="105" REF="63"> on Condition he will Accept it, and come in: Or as if a Woman&punc; Traitor &s;hould not only have pardon and life, but al&s;o be Prince&s;s, on condition &s;he will marry the Kings &s;on, that hath Ran&s;omed her. Here the act may improperly be called &s;ervice, becau&s;e Commanded: but properly and in its principal Con&s;idera|tion, it is a nece&s;&s;ary rea&s;onable means, to her own happine&s;s: And this act is but a meer Condition <HI>&s;ine qua non,</HI> of her Pardon and Dignity, and no proper Merito|rious, or efficient Cau&s;e.</P>
<P N="4">4. What a dangerous rea&s;oning is this, to <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">each men proudly to thank them|&s;elves for their pardon and happine&s;s, and deny God the thanks! To &s;ay [Gods promi&s;e would have brought me never the nearer the reward, had not I believed: and I did a great deal more to Ju&s;tifie my &s;elf by Believing then God did by his Covenant.]</P>
<P N="5">5. Nay, I would de&s;ire the Reader to ob&s;erve, what &s;hift Mr. K. hath left for him&s;elf to di&s;claim this wicked Conclu&s;ion: Is there any of the Premi&s;es which he doth not own? 1. I hope he will not deny but the Promi&s;e of pardon and &s;al|vation is made to all that hear it, on Condition, they will Repent and Believe: 2. If he regard not better proof, I hope he will believe Dr. <HI>Twi&s;s</HI> (&s;o oft repeat|ing it) that &s;alvation is given <HI>per modum praemii.</HI> 3. I hope he believes, that without believing, the Covenant would not have brought him to &s;alvation. Mu&s;t not this man then conclude on his own principles, that [he wi&s;ely ju&s;tifies him|&s;elf by believing? and more a great deal then God doth ju&s;tifie him by his pro|mulgation of the new Covenant, which would have left him in his old Conditi|on, had he not better provided for him&s;elf by Believing, then the Covenant did by promi&s;ing.] I am loth to give tho&s;e words &s;o bad an Epithete as is their due. Why may not any Traitor &s;ay the like that Receives a free pardon? Or a beggar that Receives a free alms, when Receiving or Accepting is the Condition <HI>&s;ine qua non</HI> of their attaining and po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ing it?</P>
<P N="6">6. The Go&s;pel hath a promi&s;e of Faith it &s;elf to &s;ome: and this Faith is Cau&s;ed by the holy Gho&s;t: Therefore it is &s;till God that provideth for the Elect, better then they provide for them&s;elves, how&s;oever &s;uch di&s;puters may talk. But we mu&s;t not therefore confound the nature of Gods Gifts, nor their Cau&s;es or way of production. The Spirit gives us Faith fir&s;t, which is our Condition, and makes us capable objects or &s;ubjects of Ju&s;tification: which being done, the new Law of Grace doth immediately Pardon, Ju&s;tifie and Adopt us: which way then doth Mr. K's de&s;perate con&s;equence follow? Or what &s;hew of ground hath it? It &s;eems if this man had forfeited his life, if a pardon were offered him but on Con|dition that he would Take it, and &s;ay, I thank you; he would &s;ay, he did a great deal more to his own pardon by Thanks and Acceptance, then the King that granted it, did by his Grant; becau&s;e the Grant would have left him in the old Condition, had he not better provided for him&s;elf by Thankfull Acceptance, then the King did by his Pardon.] Yea and in our Ca&s;e the Acceptance is Given too, though another way. I confe&s;s my dete&s;tation of this di&s;puting, is beyond my expre&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P><HI>Zanchy</HI> in 1 Joh. 1. <HI>loc. de Remi&s;&s;. p.</HI> 41, 42. &s;aith, Bapti&s;m is not perpetually a vi|&s;ible In&s;trument by which Remi&s;&s;ion is offered [<HI>Verbum autem perpetu&ograve; e&s;t tale In|&s;trumentum&punc; Verbum ergo non B<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">pti&s;mus, e&s;t illud proprium &amp; perpetuum in&s;trumentum per quod perpetuo p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ccatorum remi&s;&s;io nobis offertur &amp; donatur</HI> (&s;o multitudes more) And <HI>in compend. Theol. p. 764. Per Evangelium Deus gratis Ju&s;tificat.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="38" TYPE="section">
<PB N="106" REF="64">
<HEAD>&sect;. 38.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. K. <HI>ITs clear in this ca&s;e of the New Covenant, as in that of the Old: The Cove|nant ran,</HI> In the day thou <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ate&s;t thereof, thou &s;halt die: <HI>This was Gods Threat&punc; I pray who brought death into the world, God or</HI> Adam? <HI>Ju&s;t &s;o in the New Covenant,</HI> Believe and be Ju&s;tified: <HI>Who ju&s;tifies the Believer, God or him&s;elf?</HI></P>
<P>Turpe e&s;t doctori cum culp<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> redarguit ip&s;um.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="38" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 38.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> NEver let any cau&s;e be thought &s;o bad, but that it may have the greate&s;t confidence to credit it with the world. [Its clear] &s;aith Mr. K. in the beginning, and with his proverbiall Poetry, he trium|phantly concludes. But if ever man met with weaker grounds of &s;uch tri|umph and confidence, in a man of &s;uch learning, he is of larger experience then I am.</P>
<P N="1">1. To his fir&s;t Que&s;tion, I R<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ply: <HI>Adam</HI> brought death into the world as the De&s;erver, God as the Legi&s;lator, making it Due to him, if he &s;inned, and as the Judge, &s;entencing him to it for &s;in; and as the principal Cau&s;e of the Execution. But <HI>Adam</HI> was the culpable Cau&s;e.</P>
<P N="2">2. To his &s;econd Que&s;tion, I &s;ay, God ju&s;tifieth the Believer, as Legi&s;la|tor, and as Judge, and as Rector <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">pra Leges,</HI> and as Donor or Benefactor&punc; And the Believer is not &s;o much as the Meriter of his own Ju&s;tification, as <HI>Adam</HI> was of his Condemnation. Did I think that any Learned Prote|&s;tant had not known this? That he hath his Condemnation by his Me|rit, and his Ju&s;tification without his Merit, upon the performance of that Condition which is the Acceptance of Chri&s;t that hath Merited it for us? That Death is the wages of &s;inne, and Eternal Life the Gift of God through Je|&s;us Chri&s;t.</P>
<P N="3">3. But again, I admire what the man means! Whether he own the wicked Conclu&s;ion [Man ju&s;tifieth him&s;elf] or not? For he makes it to be the Con&s;e|quence of this <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">enour of the Covenant [Believe and be Ju&s;tified] And dare he &s;ay, that the Covenant doth not &s;ay, Believe and be Ju&s;tified? Yea neverthele&s;s, though it al&s;o give faith.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="39" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 39.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. K. <HI>THat</HI> fir&s;t born of Abominations <HI>in Mr.</HI> Good wins <HI>phra&s;e is unluckily laid at Mr.</HI> Baxt<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rs <HI>own door; and it may appear it is not wrongfully fathered upon him, by that very argument which be undertakes to an&s;wer, and doth well enough for &s;o much as is expre&s;t, but there is more implied in it.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="39" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 39.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. [UNluckily] mu&s;t be interpreted [by fal&s;e accu&s;ation] I expect to have &s;uch unlucky hands lay more &s;uch abominations at my door.</P>
<P N="2">2. Mr. K. confe&s;&s;eth, that I well enough an&s;wer the Argument for &s;o much as
<PB N="107" REF="64"> is expre&s;t: And let the Reader well ob&s;erve what the implied addition is that he makes.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="40" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 40.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. <HI>THat the Promulgation of the New Covenant was from the beginning&punc; Many men &s;hall not be Ju&s;tified till towards the end of the World: No man till a long time after the Promulgation: Therefore not &s;o much by Gods Pro|mulgation of the Covenant, as the man</HI> covenanter <HI>his performing the Condition, which is the Immediate Cau&s;e of it, and therefore he ju&s;tifies him&s;elf, and that more then God in the New Covenant.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="40" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 40.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. VVHat is here added as implied to that which he confe&s;&s;eth, that I well enough an&s;wered? Let him tell that can.</P>
<P N="2">2. How can he prove that <HI>Adam</HI> was not ju&s;tified till a long time after the Pro|mulgation of the New Covenant? A bold a&s;&s;ertion, me thinks.</P>
<P N="3">3. The Con&s;equence is a putid <HI>non-&s;equitur:</HI> What &s;hew doth the man bring to make any man believe his Con&s;equence, but the bare Credit of his own word?</P>
<P N="4">4. What a &s;trait doth this Di&s;puter bring him&s;elf into? He mu&s;t either &s;ay&punc; that the Go&s;pel or New Covenant doth not promi&s;e Pardon and Ju&s;tification on Condition of Believing. (And is he fit to preach the Go&s;pel that would deny &s;o great a part of it.) Or el&s;e he mu&s;t hold his wicked Conclu&s;ion, That man ju|&s;tifieth him&s;elf, and that more then God in the Covenant. And for ought I can under&s;tand by him he means to own one of the&s;e.</P>
<P N="5">5. The ground of all this rotten doctrine, is another notorious errour here ex|pre&s;&s;ed, <HI>viz.</HI> That [mans performing the Condition is the Immediate Cau&s;e of his Ju&s;tification:] when it is properly no Cau&s;e at all. A Condition may &s;ome|time be al&s;o a Moral Cau&s;e, <HI>i. e.</HI> when there is &s;omewhat in the excellency or na|ture of the thing Conditioned, to move the principal Cau&s;er: But &s;uch a Condi|tion as is purpo&s;ely cho&s;en for the aba&s;ing of man, and the honour of free Grace, and con&s;i&s;teth but either in Accepting a free Gift, or in not rejecting it again, or not &s;pitting in the face of the Giver, this is no Cau&s;e, but <HI>&s;ine qua non.</HI> It &s;eems, this Learned man hath too arrogant thoughts of his own faith, as if it were the Immediate Cau&s;e of his Ju&s;tification, and &s;o he ju&s;tified him&s;elf more then God by his Covenant.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="41" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 41.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. <HI>AS for in&s;tance: There was a Law made in Queen</HI> Elizabeths <HI>time, That every Engli&s;h man having taken Orders in the Romi&s;h Church, coming into</HI> England, <HI>&s;hall &s;uffer as a Traitor: That Engli&s;h man, which having taken Orders in the Romi&s;h Church, comes now into</HI> England, <HI>and is condemned, hath not &s;o much rea&s;on to charge his condemnation on the Queen, as him&s;elf.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="41" TYPE="section">
<PB N="108" REF="65">
<HEAD>&sect;. 41.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> THat is becau&s;e he is the culpable meriting Cau&s;e. Are we the De&s;ervers of pardon?</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="42" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 42.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. THe Law condemns him; but &s;he doth not who made the Law, who died many years &s;ince: yea the Judge who pronounceth the &s;entence doth not &s;o properly do it as the Seminary him&s;elf: No nor the Law, as the Prie&s;t him&s;elf; who had he been minded to have &s;ecured him&s;elf, might have done it at his plea&s;ure, stayed at</HI> Rheines <HI>or</HI> Doway, <HI>and condemned the Law of Tyranny; yea and avoucht all tho&s;e that &s;uffered by it as Traytors to be really Martyrs. The ca&s;e is the &s;ame, though in a different matter.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="42" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 42.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. YOu confe&s;s here that the Law condemneth: and then no doubt it ju&s;tifieth too.</P>
<P N="2">2. Where you &s;ay, [Shee doth not that made the Law] I &s;ay, that is becau&s;e the Law doth operate or cau&s;e, as it is a &s;ign of the Will of the Rector, to con&s;ti|tute that <HI>Jus</HI> which he had power to con&s;titute. Now when the Queen and Par|liament were dead, they had no power to oblige them that &s;hould live after them, much le&s;s if contrary to the Will of their &s;ucce&s;&s;ors: Nor yet had they power while they were alive, &s;o to binde po&s;terity. The Laws therefore were divolved into other hands, and now bindes as <HI>&s;ignum voluntatis Rectoris jam exi&s;tentis:</HI> For it is his will that it &s;hould continue; and that will animates it: Yet where any hath power, the &s;igns of their will may be effectual when they are dead: Or el&s;e Te&s;taments were little worth, and Legataries were in an ill ca&s;e. But whats this to our ca&s;e? God dieth not, and the Laws of his Kingdom lo&s;e not their force, nor change their Ma&s;ter, by the change of Governours. But if you had dealt in|genuou&s;ly, you &s;hould rather have enquired, whether the pre&s;ent Rector and Ma&s;ter of the Law, may be &s;aid to condemn him that the Law condemns. And that methinks you &s;hould not deny. Yea, and it may be &s;aid that dead <HI>Ly|curgus</HI> was a cau&s;e of the condemnation of &s;urviving offendors, for all your bare deniall.</P>
<P N="3">3. Where you &s;ay that [the Judge who pronounceth the &s;entence doth not &s;o properly condemn him, as the Seminary him&s;elf.] Seeing you yield that both condemn him, the Judge Sententially, and him&s;elf Meritoriou&s;ly, and the que|&s;tion is but of the greater or le&s;s propriety in the word [Condemn] I think it not worth the contending about. Yet <HI>Appello Juri&s;con&s;ultos:</HI> and if they &s;ay not that it is a more proper &s;peech to &s;ay [The Judge condemneth him] then to &s;ay [He condemned him&s;elf by breaking the Law] then I am content the next time its acted to take <HI>Ignoramus</HI> his part, and confe&s;s that I know little of the Lawyers language. Indeed I &s;till &s;ay it is the offendour that is the culpable cau&s;e. Where you &s;ay that the ca&s;e is here the &s;ame: I an&s;wer, then it &s;eems you think you de|&s;erve a Pardon, as a thief de&s;erves the Gallows. I dur&s;t not have called the&s;e ca&s;es the &s;ame.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="43" TYPE="section">
<PB N="109" REF="65">
<HEAD>&sect;. 43.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. IN a like matter take it thus. A man is found guilty of a felony; the Law &s;aith, He &s;hall be &s;aved if he &s;hall reade: he reads and is &s;aved: Gramercy, &s;aith he, to my Reading more then to the courte&s;ie of the Law: and though he acknowledge</HI> pro forma <HI>that it is the courte&s;ie and grace of the State to him, yet as the bad Engli&s;h man,</HI> God ble&s;s her Father and Mother that taught her to reade, <HI>el&s;e the Law would have been &s;evere enough; he may be &s;aid to have &s;aved him&s;elf.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="43" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 43.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. YOu &s;ay, [It is a like matter.] But you &s;ay &s;o much and prove &s;o little, that you lo&s;e much of your labour, as to me. It is not a like matter. The Law for &s;aving him that reads <HI>ut Clericus,</HI> was made partly to &s;pare Learned men, becau&s;e the Prince or Commonwealth hath need of them, and &s;u|&s;taineth a greater lo&s;s in the death of &s;uch then of the unlearned; and partly in a re&s;pect to the worth of their Learning, if not with &s;ome &s;pecial indulgence to the Clergy for their Office, and to plea&s;e the Pope. But Gods Law of Grace pardoning a penitent, gracefull Believer, hath no &s;uch intent: God needs not us, as the Commonwealth needs the Learned. Be&s;ides the Law hath laid the con|dition of e&s;cape in intellectual Abilities, without any Moral re&s;pect to the virtue of the party: but God hath laid it more in the meer con&s;ent of the Will&punc;</P>
<P N="2">2. But if you will interpret the Law of the Land otherwi&s;e, as if it were an act of pure&s;t grace, then I &s;ay, your Client with his <HI>Gramercy</HI> is an ungrate|full fellow, and your bad Engli&s;hman, is the picture of a bad Chri&s;tian, indeed no Chri&s;tian: But by your &s;peeches I perceive that about the&s;e matters experience is a great advantage to the right under&s;tanding of the Truth; by the means whereof many an unlearned Chri&s;tian knows more then &s;ome Learned Di&s;puters. He that hath felt what it is to be condemned by the Law, and afterward pardon|ed by the Go&s;pel, and put into a &s;tate of &s;alvation by Chri&s;t, doth not &s;ay as Mr. <HI>K.</HI> that he is more beholden to his believing then to Gods promi&s;e, but hear|tily a&s;cribeth all to God. Faith is the act of an humbled &s;oul accepting of Chri&s;t as he is offered in the Go&s;pel. And can any humbled &s;oul give thanks to his own Acceptance, more then to Gods Gift? yea when the power and act of Accepting is his Gift al&s;o? If Mr. <HI>K.</HI> have an imagination that in every conditional Dona|tion, there is more thanks due to the performer of the condition then to the giver, I dare &s;ay, he is an ungratefull per&s;on to God and men. If his father leave him all his E&s;tate on condition he give a younger Brother 6^d out of it, or that he give 6^d to the poor; it &s;eems he will more thank him&s;elf then his father. If he had forfeited his life, and a pardon were given him, on condition he would Accept it thankfully and humbly on his knees, and that he would not &s;pit in the face of him that giveth it, nor &s;eek his death, he would give the chiefe&s;t thanks to him&s;elf. As for the phra&s;e of [&s;aving him&s;elf] he knows it is the Scripture phra&s;e, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. la&s;t&punc; though pardoning our &s;elves be not.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="44" TYPE="section">
<PB N="110" REF="66">
<HEAD>&sect;. 44.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. YEa Mr.</HI> Baxter <HI>expre&s;&s;eth &s;omewhat in his an&s;wer which makes up full mea|&s;ure of evidence again&s;t him. He &s;aith, The condition being performed, the Conditionall grant becomes ab&s;olute.</HI> Ergo, <HI>&s;ay I&punc; He that performs the Condition, makes the grant to be ab&s;olute, and &s;o doth more to his Ju&s;tification then God, who made only a Conditionall grant, and which notwith&s;tanding he might have peri&s;ht, yea mu&s;t without his own act of believing. And truly whoever makes faith the Condition of th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> New Covenant in &s;uch a &s;en&s;e as full obedience was the Condition of the Old, cannot avoid it, but that man is ju&s;tified chiefly by him&s;elf, his own acts, not &s;o much by Gods grace in imputing Chri&s;ts Righteou&s;ne&s;s, but more by his own faith, which I hope is his own act, though Gods work.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="44" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 44.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. ALl's clear again&s;t me, if you be Judge; but the whole charge de|pends but on the credit of your bare word. That [<HI>Ergo,</HI> &s;ay I] is the &s;trong proof. Your con&s;equence is none, but a meer fiction. By [Ab&s;olute] I mean, it actually conferres without any further Condition, when all the Con|dition is performed. Its a hard ca&s;e that a man &s;o Learned in his own eyes &s;hould be ignorant what a Condition is, <HI>in &s;en&s;u Civili, vel Legali.</HI> Were you not &s;o, you would not &s;till make it a cau&s;e; when (unle&s;s &s;omewhat beyond the meer nature of a Condition be added) it is no cau&s;e at all. It is fal&s;e therefore that the performer in our ca&s;e makes the grant to be Ab&s;olute, if by <HI>making,</HI> you mean <HI>cau&s;ing,</HI> as you before expre&s;s your &s;elf, it is only a performing that, <HI>&s;ine qua Do|natio non erit Actualis vel Ab&s;oluta.</HI> It is the Donor (yea though he were dead before) that makes the Conditional grant become Actual or Ab&s;olute when the Condition is performed. And if it &s;till &s;tick in your &s;tomack, that he performeth no new act to do this; I an&s;wer, it needs not: the fir&s;t act of making his Te&s;ta|ment, Deed of gift, Contract, Law, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> doth all this. The Law or other in|&s;trument, is but the &s;ignifier of his Will, and therefore conveyeth when and on what terms he will (in a ca&s;e within his power.) If it be his will that this In|&s;trument &s;hall <HI>Jus</HI> conferre pre&s;ently and ab&s;olutely, it doth it: If but <HI>in dicu</HI> and ab&s;olutely, it doth it: If <HI>&s;ub conditione,</HI> it doth it: and in both the la&s;t ca&s;es, its his will that the In&s;trument &s;hall give no Actual Right till the day come, or till the Condition be performed&punc; &s;o that a Condition is no true cau&s;e of the effect: the <HI>non</HI>-performance of it &s;u&s;pendeth the act of the grant, but the performance doth not cau&s;e it; unle&s;s you mean it of a <HI>cau&s;a fatua,</HI> which doth but <HI>removere impedi|mentum;</HI> &s;o that if the Day be twenty years after the Te&s;tators death, that the Legacy becomes due, or if the Condition be &s;o long after performed, it is the will of the Donor that maketh that In&s;trument then convey Right, which did not be|fore; becau&s;e it works only <HI>&s;ignificando voluntatem Donatoris,</HI> and &s;o when and how he expre&s;&s;ed his will it &s;hould work. Would one think &s;uch trivial obvious points &s;hould be unknown to Mr. <HI>K.?</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Where you talk of [faith being a condition of the New Covenant in the &s;ame &s;en&s;e as full Obedience of the Old.] I &s;ay your words [in the &s;ame &s;en&s;e] are ambiguous: <HI>Quoad rationem formalem Conditionis in genere,</HI> it is in the &s;ame &s;en&s;e a Condition. But it is not a Condition of the &s;ame <HI>&s;pecies.</HI> It differs in the
<PB N="111" REF="66"> matter; one being the humble thankfull Acceptance of Chri&s;t and Life freely re&s;tored and given; the other being a perfect fulfilling of a perfect Law: the ends are different: One is to obtain part in Life purcha&s;ed by Chri&s;t, when we wer<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> undone by &s;in: the other to maintain continued intere&s;t in the felicity fir&s;t given by the Creator: One is to aba&s;e the &s;inner by &s;elf-deniall, and to extoll Free|grace; the other was to obtain the Reward in a way as honourable to man, as he was capable of. More differences might ea&s;ily be added.</P>
<P N="3">3. Let the Reader mark what our Que&s;tion was [Whether God Pardon or Ju&s;tifie us by the Covenant grant?] and whether Mr. <HI>K.</HI> hath now carried it? It was all this while maintained, that the performer of the Condition, is not Ju&s;tified &s;o much by the Covenant as by him&s;elf: Now it is come to the&s;e terms: [Not &s;o much by Gods Grace in Imputing Chri&s;ts Righteou&s;ne&s;s, but more by his own faith.] He &s;eems to me to yield, that we are as &s;ure|ly Ju&s;tified by the Covenant, as by Gods Grace imputing Chri&s;ts Righte|ou&s;ne&s;s.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="45" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 45.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. YEt &s;ay I again&s;t Mr.</HI> Baxter 2. <HI>That faith is the Real effect which God works, by a Tran&s;ient act on a per&s;on whom he ju&s;tifies.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="45" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 45.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> YOu are re&s;olved, it &s;eems, it &s;hall be again&s;t Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> whatever you &s;ay. But what Rational Animal be&s;ides your &s;elf can tell how this is again&s;t me? If it be again&s;t me, its either Directly or Con&s;equentially. If Di|rectly, then I have &s;omewhere denied it, or &s;poke the contrary: Shew where and &s;hame me. If Con&s;equentially, why is there no hint given us which way it makes again&s;t me? or again&s;t what opinion or words of mine? It &s;eems it was intenti|onally again&s;t me, not again&s;t my Doctrine but Me: Your minde may be again&s;t me, but Truth is not again&s;t me.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="46" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 46.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. THat faith is a Reall effect, others will admit without proving: Mr.</HI> Bax|ter <HI>who denies faculties and habits distinct from the &s;oul, may be forced to yield it by this Argument. If faith be not a Reall effect on the &s;oul, then neither is any other grace, for all flow from faith, and con&s;equently no reall alteration wrought in Sanctification, and con&s;equently no &s;anctified &s;oul Really differs from her &s;elf when un&s;anctified, no nor more then</HI> numero <HI>from un&s;anctified worldlings; they are all alike. Taking it then that faith is a Real effect: 2. It is acknowledged it is wrought by God, and that not of our &s;elves, it is the gift of God. And 3. that it is wrought by a tran&s;ient act, as being a Reall effect by God in</HI> &s;ubjecto extraneo. <HI>Let us &s;ee now how by this tran&s;ient act whereby God works &s;aith, he may truly be &s;aid to ju&s;tifie us in time as he decreed from eternity?</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="46" TYPE="section">
<PB N="112" REF="67">
<HEAD>&sect;. 46.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. THe man would have his Reader believe that I mu&s;t be forced by his Arguments to confe&s;s faith to be a real effect. 2. Till he prove it, I will take it for a meer &s;lander, that I deny Faculties and Habits di&s;tinct from the &s;oul. 1. I &s;aid I thought [it would not be proved,] but I ro&s;e not to the confidence of a flat deniall; as knowing what is &s;aid on both &s;ides. 2. What was it that I &s;aid would not be proved? That the faculties were not <HI>Really di&s;tinct</HI> from the &s;oul or one another: but not that they were not <HI>di&s;tinct,</HI> as Mr. <HI>K.</HI> &s;aith. They may be di&s;tinct modally or formally, though not <HI>ut Res &amp; Res.</HI> 3. When did I &s;ay this of Habits, as Mr. <HI>K.</HI> affirmeth? But I will hereafter expect no more truth from him, even in matters of fact, then according to the proportion of the foregoing di&s;pute. 4. To the point it &s;elf I &s;ay, we mu&s;t di&s;tingui&s;h of Reality: If you oppo&s;e Real either to Feigned, or Privative, or Negative, or Potential, or to an extrin&s;ecall denomination, or to meerly Relative, &s;o its out of doubt that faith and all graces in the act and habit are Real effects. But if by Real you mean more then a di&s;tinction formall, or <HI>Ratione Ratiocinata,</HI> or Modal, I will neither affirm nor deny it, till I better under&s;tand it: You that know &s;o well the nature of the Immanent acts of God, may a thou&s;and times more ea&s;ily know the nature of the Immanent acts and habits of man: but I confe&s;s exceed|ing great ignorance of both: and to tell you my opinions of the&s;e things would be but vain and un&s;ea&s;onable. 5. Your la&s;t words contain the my&s;tery, that by [that tran&s;ient act whereby God worketh faith, he may be &s;aid to Ju|&s;tifie;] we &s;hall have good &s;tuff, I think, when this my&s;tery comes to be o|pened.</P>
<Q>Whether Faith Ju&s;tifie as an In&s;trument.</Q>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="47" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 47.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K.</HI> M^r Baxter <HI>objects again&s;t faiths being an in&s;trument of our Ju&s;tification: and that it is neither mans nor Gods in&s;trument. I &s;hall make it appear to be both Gods and mans in &s;ome &s;en&s;e, though in different respects, notwith&s;tanding all he hath &s;aid to the contrary. Saith he, If faith be an In&s;trument of our Ju&s;tification, it is the In&s;trument of God or man: not of man; for man is not the principall efficient, he doth not ju&s;tifie him&s;elf. I An&s;wer 1. According to his doctrine, man doth ju&s;tifie him&s;elf,</HI> ut &s;upra. 2. <HI>That man is not the principall efficient of his &s;aith, more then of his Ju&s;ti|fication; it is God who mu&s;t have that honour. 3. That man doth receive his Ju&s;tifi|cation by faith as an In&s;trument, as &s;hall be &s;hewed hereafter.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="47" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 47.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> THis quarrel&s;ome man wanting work, had a minde to take in this Con|trover&s;ie al&s;o, about faiths In&s;trumentality in Ju&s;tifying: but what an unhand&s;ome Tran&s;ition he makes to draw it in, may be ea&s;ily di&s;cerned. Let the Reader remember, that the thing which I deny is, that faith is an In&s;trument
<PB N="113" REF="67"> in the &s;trict Logical &s;en&s;e, that is, an In&s;trumental efficient cau&s;e of our Ju&s;ti|fication: and that I expre&s;ly di&s;claim contending <HI>de nomine,</HI> or contradicting any that only u&s;e the word In&s;trument in an improper larger &s;en&s;e, as Mechanicks and Rhetoricians do: &s;o that the Que&s;tion is <HI>de re,</HI> whether it efficiently cau&s;e our Ju&s;tification as an In&s;trument? This I deny. And to his triple An&s;wer I Reply. 1. The fir&s;t is of the old &s;tamp; a gro&s;s untruth, needing no other reply then a deniall. 2. The &s;econd if it be &s;en&s;e, implieth the deniall of this maxime, that [<HI>In&s;trumentum e&s;t efficientis principalis Instrumentum</HI>] and thence inferreth, that [as man may be his own In&s;trument in effecting faith, though he be not the prin|cipall cau&s;e, &s;o may he be in Ju&s;tification of him&s;elf.] If this be not the &s;en&s;e of it (if contradictions may be called &s;en&s;e) then I cannot under&s;tand it. But the denied maxime needs no proof: that man is his own In&s;trument in effecting his faith, needs no more then a deniall to di&s;prove it (&s;peaking thus <HI>de homine,</HI> and not <HI>de parte aliqua hominis organic&acirc;.</HI>) That man is not <HI>cau&s;a principalis</HI> in beleeving, is untrue; though God be <HI>Cau&s;a prima:</HI> May none but the <HI>Cau&s;a prima</HI> be called <HI>Cau&s;a principalis?</HI> then no creature is capable of u&s;ing an In&s;trument. 3. His third mu&s;t be con&s;idered when we come to the fuller proof which he referres us to.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="48" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 48.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. B&V;t when he &s;aith, Faith is not Gods In&s;trument, 1. I do not &s;ay it is pro|perly, but it is his work, and by giving us faith he justifies us, as &s;hall be &s;hewed anon, he giving us that which is our In&s;trument, whereby we receive the Righte|ou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="48" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 48.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. EVennow he undertook to prove it Gods In&s;trument, but now, he doth not &s;ay it is properly: and I will not contend again&s;t an improper term, when the thing is di&s;claimed. 2. Here is another touch upon the my&s;tery, that [by giving us faith he ju&s;tifies us] but we &s;hall be &s;hewed it anon: therefore I mu&s;t not overha&s;tily anticipate it.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="49" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 49.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. 2. B&V;t it is as much his In&s;trument as the new Covenant is: for faith work|ing in my heart, is that whereby God pronounceth the New Covenant to be of benefit to me for my Ju&s;tification.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="49" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 49.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. IF the New Covenant be properly Gods In&s;trument, and faith be not, then faith is not as much his In&s;trument as the New Covenant: But the Antecedent is true: Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> The &s;econd member of the Antecedent Mr. <HI>K.</HI> now yielded. For the fir&s;t I will appeal to all Lawyers and Politicians, or any that under&s;tands what an In&s;trument is, what Civil commerce is, and what a Law or any Contract is, whether a Deed of gift, a Te&s;tament, or a Law be not as proper In&s;truments <HI>conferendi Jus, con&s;tituendi Debitum,</HI> as is imaginable,
<PB N="114" REF="68"> or as the nature of the thing con&s;tituted or conferred (<HI>Debitum</HI>) is capable of. In the mean time, I leave Mr. <HI>K.</HI> to examine it, by the common Canons and pro|perties of an In&s;trument. 2. Faith is not [Gods pronouncing,] but your belief of what he pronounceth, and Acceptance of what he offers: Will you confound faith with its object? Divine Te&s;timony is the object of faith, and you make it faith it &s;elf. 3. I know the Antinomians take faith to be [the belief of our Ju|&s;tification: or the per&s;wa&s;ion or apprehen&s;ion of Gods love to me in &s;pecial,] but &s;o do not our modern Prote&s;tants. 4. If this be true doctrine, then wo to poor Chri&s;tians that have no A&s;&s;urance of their Ju&s;tification: and then, how few have faith? For I think it is comparatively but a &s;mall number that have felt God pro|nouncing in their hearts, that the Covenant is of benefit to their own particular Ju&s;tification: except by the term [of benefit] be meant, a conditional Ju&s;tifica|tion, or a tendency or means towards their Ju&s;tification; and &s;o even ungodly men may know that it's [of benefit] to them for Ju&s;tification (as Mr. <HI>K.</HI> phra|&s;eth it.) 5. Doth not Mr. <HI>K.</HI> &s;hew here that the Truth &s;ticks in his minde, and that he is fain to hide it in ambiguous terms. What can he mean by this &s;aying [God pronounceth the New Covenant to be of benefit to me for my Ju&s;tificati|on] but this [That the New Covenant ju&s;tifieth me?] He would not openly tell us which way it benefiteth him to Ju&s;tification, and yet be no efficient in&s;tru|mentall cau&s;e of it.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="50" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 50.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. ANd 3. it may be Gods In&s;trument notwith&s;tanding his Argument: whereof the fir&s;t is [for it is not God that believeth] nor needs it, &s;ay I: it is e|nough that God maketh me believe, and &s;o receive the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t: yea God by making me believe gives me an hand wherewith to receive, opens my hand whereby I receive it: I alone receive, but the&s;e are Gods acts, and though God be not &s;aid to be|lieve, he truly may be &s;aid to be the Authour of my belief; my belief is an immauent act in me, and &s;o denominates me the believer, a tran&s;ient act as from God, and denominates him only the Authour of my believing: in me it is an adjunct, it hath to him only the re|lation of an effect. For example, I throw a bowl: the motion of this bowl is more from me then the bowl, and I accordingly am &s;aid to have bowled well or ill: but the motion doth not denominate me otherwi&s;e then in the Agent, not the &s;ubject; and though I be &s;aid to bowl well, the bowl in this ca&s;e is only &s;aid to run, not I. So the chief Authour of my Believing is God, and he mu&s;t have the glory of turning and framing and upholding and working all in my heart, as being the Authour, Pre&s;erver and Fini&s;her of my faith, yet I alonc am &s;aid to believe, not God; though my faith be more properly Gods work, then it is my own: had not he begun it in me, I had no more believed in Chri&s;t, then the bowl would have run to the mark of it &s;elf; all the progre&s;s of my faith is from him, and to him be all the glory.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="50" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 50.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. NOne of all this is brought again&s;t my Conclu&s;ion, for he yieldeth that; (that our faith is not properly Gods In&s;trument in ju&s;tifying) but it is to &s;hew the &s;trength of his wit again&s;t my <HI>mediums.</HI> If he yield it to be the truth which I maintain, the matter is the le&s;s if I fail in proving it: Or if one <HI>medium</HI> be defective, it is little matter, if the re&s;t, or any one &s;uffice. 2. What
<PB N="115" REF="68"> hath he &s;aid in all the&s;e words, more then what I &s;aid in tho&s;e few words which he oppo&s;eth, <HI>viz.</HI> [It is not God that Believeth, though its true he is the fir&s;t Cau&s;e of all Actions.] Is not this the full &s;ub&s;tance of his &s;peech? 3. All his words &s;eem to tend but to prove that God may be &s;aid to be the principal Cau&s;e of our faith, and it to be his act: but what's that to its in&s;trumentality in ju&s;tify|ing. 4. I intended this fir&s;t Propo&s;ition, chiefly as preparatory to the re&s;t, ra|ther then as a full proof of the Conclu&s;ion by it &s;elf. Perhaps we may give him &s;ome plainer Argument anon, when he hath done with the&s;e.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="51" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 51.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. Mr. Baxters <HI>&s;econd Argument to prove it, not Gods In&s;trument that man is</HI> Cau&s;a &s;ecunda <HI>between God and the Action, and &s;o &s;till &s;aid to ju&s;tifie him&s;elf. I an&s;wer, 1. Man is indeed</HI> Cau&s;a &s;ecunda, <HI>but not between God and the Action, for God doth immediately concurre to it, and man is in regard of the habit of faith purely pa&s;&s;ive, not active at all, for that though other habits may be acquired, faith is infu&s;ed both for the effence and degree. 2. Man may not be &s;aid by his believing to justi|fie him&s;elf, but to Believe to his Ju&s;tification, and to receive Ju&s;tification by believing, for that by faith, as it is Gods work, God doth ju&s;tifie him,</HI> viz. <HI>declares hereby the Righteou&s;|ne&s;&s;e of Chri&s;t to be his own; he doth apprehend or receive the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t by believing, as it is his own act, whereof &s;till he is the Subject, not the Author, as the Bowl is of it running.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="51" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 51.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. VVHether God concurre Immediately to all humane actions, I have no minde to di&s;pute: If Mr. <HI>K.</HI> want work on that &s;ub|ject, he may an&s;wer <HI>Ludov. a Dola.</HI> But it &s;ufficeth me that man al&s;o is an Im|mediate Cau&s;e of his Believing. 2. Whether man be Pa&s;&s;ive or not in receiving the habit, is nothing, that I know of, to the matter; as long as the act which ju|&s;tifieth is immediately by him. 3. It is a great uncertainty which you affirm &s;o confidently. You know not but that the Spirit of God by the Word, may excite an act of faith before he infu&s;e a habit, and by that act (or more) produce a ha|bit. 4. And &s;o the habit may be &s;aid to be Infu&s;ed as from God, and acquired by man too: and it is commonly granted, that Infu&s;ed habits are attained <HI>&s;ecundum modum acqui&s;itorum.</HI></P>
<P>To the &s;econd An&s;wer, I &s;ay, 1. For your Receiving In&s;trument, we &s;hall &s;peak to it anon. 2. <HI>Si fides efficit Ju&s;tificationem, tum Credens per fidem ef|ficit Iu&s;tificationem: At fides &s;i mod&ograve; In&s;trumentum Iu&s;tificationis e&s;t, Iu&s;tificationem efficit: Ergo,</HI> &amp;c. The <HI>major</HI> is evident, in that man is the immediate proper Cau&s;e of the act, therefore if the act doth it, the Agent by that act doth it. The In&s;trument is his that immediately and properly u&s;eth it. The <HI>minor</HI> is undeniable, &s;peaking of a true in&s;trumental Cau&s;e: For there is no in&s;trumental Cau&s;e in any kinde, but of efficients.</P>
<P N="2">2. A hint I perceive more here of your opinion, what is Gods ju&s;tifying act, <HI>viz.</HI> Working faith in us: but I will wait till this opinion dare come into the light.</P>
<P N="3">3. I perceive al&s;o here what you take Ju&s;tification to be, <HI>viz.</HI> [declaring Chri&s;ts
<PB N="116" REF="69"> Righteou&s;ne&s;s to be his own] Right Antinomiani&s;m. 1. Will you tell us whe|ther [Declaring Chri&s;ts Righteou&s;ne&s;s to be mine] do not &s;uppo&s;e it to be fir&s;t mine? El&s;e it is the Declaring of an untruth. And if it were mine before, was not I ju&s;t before? and &s;o <HI>con&s;titutiv&egrave;</HI> ju&s;tified? 2. Why did you not tell us when and how that was done? And what was the act whereby God did con&s;titute me ju&s;t? Which is fir&s;t to be known, and which you knew that I was &s;peaking of. 3. Where, and to whom is it that [God declares this] you &s;peak of? Onely in Con&s;cience, and not to others, no doubt. But I doubt not fully to &s;hame (in due place) this Antinomian fancy, that Ju&s;tification by faith (in Scripture &s;en&s;e) is but Ju&s;tification in Con&s;cience. 4. Many a &s;oul hath ju&s;tifying faith (of A&s;|&s;ent and Con&s;ent) who yet doth not believe that Chri&s;ts Righteou&s;ne&s;s is their own. 5. May not other Graces declare Chri&s;ts Righteou&s;ne&s;s to be ours? (I know not whether it be <HI>&s;ano &s;en&s;u</HI> that you &s;peak of Chri&s;ts Righteou&s;ne&s;s being made ours, but I will not digre&s;&s;e to enquire further into it now.) 6. You do &s;trangely affirm, that man is not the author of his own act (whether he be the &s;ubject, I referre to what is &s;aid:) If by the Author, you mean, not the per&s;wa|der, but the Agent, the vital, voluntary &s;elf-determiner, then he is the Author; or el&s;e I could tell you of &s;uch unavoidable con&s;equents, as you will be a&s;hamed to own. If you be indeed one of tho&s;e that think man a free Agent, is no more the author of his own acts, then your Bowl is, I &s;hall fear, le&s;t you will think your &s;elf very excu&s;able for all the evil you do, and therefore little care what you do: I &s;hall be loath to tru&s;t a man of &s;uch principles, if his carnal intere&s;t carry him to do me a mi&s;chief. How many Philo&s;ophers or Divines are of your minde in this, that man is but the Subject and not the Authur of his own act of Be|lieving?</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="52" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 52.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. <HI>TO his third Argument, that the</HI> Action of the principal Cau&s;e, and of the In&s;trument is the &s;ame, <HI>is true, and when he asks,</HI> Who dare &s;ay that faith is &s;o Gods In&s;trument? <HI>I under&s;tand not any great danger in affirming, that God giving me faith, the habit and thereby the act of believing, concurs with my faith which he hath given in enabling me to receive Chri&s;t; he gives me an hand, &s;tretcheth it out, and opens it, and puts Chri&s;ts Righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e into it: Why is not my hand here his In&s;trument whereby he conveys Chri&s;ts Righteou&s;ne&s;s to me, as well or more then my own whereby I apprehend it?</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="52" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 52.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. IF it be true, that the Action of the Principal and In&s;trumental Cau&s;e be the &s;ame, then it unavoidably follows, that man ju&s;tifi|eth and pardoneth him&s;elf, when God doth it. For then when God effecteth our Ju&s;tification, Faith, which is his In&s;trument doth effect it too: When God forgiveth us <HI>effectiv&egrave;,</HI> faith forgiveth us <HI>effectiv&egrave;:</HI> and con&s;equently the immedi|ate agent man, doth it too. 2. Again, I tell you, the place to examine your Re|ceiving In&s;trumentality is anon where your &s;elf hath de&s;igned it. I may not an|ticipate you.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="53" TYPE="section">
<PB N="117" REF="69">
<HEAD>&sect;. 53.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. <HI>ANd whereas he &s;aith, Fourthly, The Instrument hath an Influx on the effect, by a proper Cau&s;ality, which who dare &s;ay of faith? I an&s;wer, 1. That it hath a proper Cau&s;ality upon our Ju&s;tification pa&s;&s;ively taken, that is, upon our Receiving the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t. And no more need: for we make it an In&s;trument not to work, but to receive. But &s;econdly, according to him it hath more then the Influx of an In&s;trumental, that of the principal efficient upon our Ju&s;tification, as being that which makes this Conditional Grant in the Covenant to become Ab&s;olute: And all the benefit we receive by the Covenant is more to be a&s;cribed to our faith, then Gods grace in the Cove|nant, which would have been of no advantage to us at all, had it not been that our faith came in and rendred it of u&s;e to us. Thus then we do not deprive God of his Glory in ju&s;tifying us by faith, though we a&s;cribe Ju&s;tification to faith; for we a&s;cribe our faith to God, and make our believing his work, which as it comes from him is an active declarati|on, as in us a Pa&s;&s;ive re&s;enting of his favour to us in Chri&s;t, of which we alwayes may though we not actually a&s;sure our &s;elves.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="53" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 53.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. REceiving is either Properly, which is alwayes Pa&s;&s;ive: Or impro|perly, morally, imputatively, which is the Con&s;ent of the will when a thing is offered, and it is active, called Receiving, becau&s;e it is nece&s;&s;ary to the Pa&s;&s;ive proper Receiving.</P>
<P>In the former &s;en&s;e, to Receive pardon and Ju&s;tification is nothing but to be pardoned and ju&s;tified: it is a meer Relative Reception. In the later &s;en&s;e, faith it &s;elf is our [Receiving] If Mr. <HI>K.</HI> mean the former, when he &s;aith, that [faith hath a proper Cau&s;ality upon it] I &s;ay, His words are &s;carce &s;en&s;e. To have [Cau&s;ality upon] implieth a &s;ubject upon which there may be &s;uch Cau&s;ality: But the Reception of a Relation is no &s;uch capable Subject. If he mean only [a Cau&s;ality of that Reception] I &s;ay, There is no natural proper Cau&s;e of the Reception of a Relation, but that which cau&s;eth the Relation it &s;elf, by Cau&s;ing its foundation: though there may be other Cau&s;es of the fitne&s;s of the Subject, yet that fitne&s;s effecteth not the Reeeption. Moral Cau&s;es there may be be&s;ides; but this is not pleaded &s;uch. An efficient In&s;trument of the Reception of a Relation, (that is, <HI>Justitiae, vel juris ad impunitatem</HI>) we &s;hall believe it to be when we fir&s;t finde &s;en&s;e, and then truth in that a&s;&s;ertion. 2. And for the &s;econd kinde of <HI>Receiving</HI> Chri&s;ts Righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e, it is Faith it &s;elf. And to &s;ay, that faith hath a proper Cau&s;ality on it &s;elf, is a hard &s;aying.</P>
<P>Your &s;econd An&s;wer is the meer repetition of a notorious &s;lander, not onely unproved, but bewraying the gro&s;&s;e mi&s;take of the Nature of a Le|gal Condition; as I have &s;ufficiently &s;hewed, and will not wa&s;te time to recite.</P>
<P>I conclude therefore contrary to your Conclu&s;ion, that if you make faith the proper In&s;trument of ju&s;tifying, you make man his own pardoner, and rob God of his Soveraignty. Your rea&s;on to the contrary is &s;uch as the Papi&s;ts bring to excu&s;e their doctrine of Merit: they &s;ay, Chri&s;t hath Merited for them a power of Meriting, and &s;o the glory redounds to him: &s;o you &s;ay, [We a&s;cribe our faith to God, though we a&s;cribe Ju&s;tification to faith.] But you mu&s;t needs a&s;cribe it al&s;o immediatly to your &s;elf, if you be the man that believes.</P>
<PB N="118" REF="70">
<P>Again, you touch the way of Gods ju&s;tifying darkly: [As it comes from him (you &s;ay) it is an active declaration, as in us a Pa&s;&s;ive re&s;enting his favour to us in Chri&s;t.] But, 1. do you mean, it is a Declaration Enunciative? Or meerly &s;ignal? If the former, it is very fal&s;e. To &s;peak a Truth, and to Cau&s;e one to believe it, are not all one. If the later, then it &s;eems you think God ju|&s;tifies a man, every time he giveth him any Evidence of his Grace. And if &s;o, then other Graces ju&s;tifie as well as faith; and then Ju&s;tification is increa&s;ed upon every increa&s;e of every Grace: But more of this when you come to it of purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>And Pa&s;&s;ive Re&s;enting Gods Love or Favour is an ill de&s;cription of ju&s;tifying faith, and not a little dangerous.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="54" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 54.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. Mr. Baxter <HI>proceeds to take off an Objection. [But &s;ome would evade it thus: Faith, &s;ay they, is a Pa&s;&s;ive In&s;trument, not an Active] I know not who &s;ay it, nor matters it much, yea it is needle&s;s to &s;ay &s;o: But Mr.</HI> Baxters <HI>an&s;wer to this I conceive to be very un&s;atisfactory: For where he &s;aith [1. Even Pa&s;&s;ive in&s;tru|ments are &s;aid to help the Action of the principal Agent,</HI> Kecker. <HI>log. p. 131. and he that &s;aith faith doth &s;o, in my judgement gives too much to it] I an&s;wer, That without offence it may be &s;aid, that Faith doth help the Action of the principal Agent,</HI> i. e. <HI>God in our Ju&s;tification, God doing nothing in it without faith; I &s;peak of &s;uch as are</HI> adulti, <HI>or of years. 2. That Mr.</HI> Baxter <HI>mu&s;t &s;ay &s;o, for that according to him faith makes Gods Conditional Grant in the New Covenant to become ab&s;olute, and therefore doth the main o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Gods work.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="54" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 54.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. LEt it be ob&s;erved that Mr. <HI>K.</HI> takes it for needle&s;&s;e, to &s;ay, Faith is a Pa&s;&s;ive In&s;trument: and therefore he mu&s;t maintain it to be an Active In&s;trument, or none.</P>
<P N="2">2. I doubt Mr. <HI>K.</HI> would have thought me near to a Bla&s;phemer (&s;uppo&s;ing the intere&s;t of his Cau&s;e to have carried him another way) if I had &s;aid and main|tained that mans Faith doth help the Action of God: 1. If Gods Action were ta|ken to be <HI>Cau&s;a partialis</HI> (which I think Mr. <HI>K.</HI> doth not believe it to be) yet mans Action would help to produce the Effect, only by concurring with Gods Action, but not properly, help Gods Action; for it would have no influx into it. 2. If Gods Action be <HI>Cau&s;a totalis in &s;uo genere,</HI> and mans Action &s;ubordinate to it, much le&s;&s;e can mans Action be &s;aid properly to help Gods action. 3. But the truth is in pardoning &s;in, and ju&s;tifying us, Mans action of believing is no Cau&s;e at all, and therefore no proper Help to Gods action. God hath no need of our help to pardon our &s;in. The performing of our Condition by Thankfull Accep|ting Chri&s;t and Life, is no Helping Gods Action. But its &s;trange to &s;ee how Mr. <HI>K.</HI> reels too and fro! Sometime he dare &s;ay it over and over, that if the New Covenant &s;ay [Believe and be Ju&s;tified] and make our faith the Condition of our <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">u&s;tification, then a man ju&s;tifies him&s;elf by believing, and more a great <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">hen God doth by the promulgation of his Covenant, and that he is ju&s;tified <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">y by him&s;elf and his own acts, and not &s;o much by Gods Grace in im|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 span">g Chri&s;ts Righteou&s;ne&s;s, but by his own faith.] And yet now he
<PB N="119" REF="70"> dare &s;ay, that mans Believing doth help God in Pardoning or Ju&s;tify|ing him.</P>
<P N="3">3. And what's his proof? Why [God doth nothing without faith.] A &s;trange proof! So every Matter, Object, <HI>Dispo&s;itio Materiae,</HI> or Condition <HI>&s;ine quae non,</HI> &s;hould help the Action of the Efficient. Sure Helping is acting, and therefore Effecting. So he may as well &s;ay, that the preparation of the &s;oul for Receiving Regenerating, Sanctifying Grace, doth help the Spirits Action of in|fu&s;ing it.</P>
<P N="4">4. As for his &s;econd An&s;wer, that [I mu&s;t &s;ay &s;o too, for that according to me, faith makes Gods Conditional Grant to become ab&s;olute] I Reply, that this is an oft repeated &s;lander of a hard fore-head, without &s;hew of proof. If this be mine, it is either directly or con&s;equently. If directly, let him produce my words. If con&s;equentially, let him prove it if he can. If he attempt it, it mu&s;t be by this Syllogi&s;m, [He that &s;aith, Upon the performance of the Condi|tion, the Covenant becomes ab&s;olute, doth &s;ay in &s;en&s;e, that the performance of the Condition, makes the Covenant become Ab&s;olutely, <HI>i. e.</HI> effects it: But M. <HI>B.</HI> &s;aith the former: Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>] Let him that knows no difference between an efficient Cau&s;e, and a meer Condition <HI>&s;ine qua non,</HI> believe the <HI>major.</HI> I know &s;o much difference, that I dare &s;ay, it is fal&s;e.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="55" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 55.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. <HI>VVHereas he &s;aith [2. It is pa&s;t my Capacity to conceive of a Pa&s;&s;ive Moral In&s;trument.] I an&s;wer, what ever Mr.</HI> Baxter <HI>may conceive, nothing is more obvious then that many men at lea&s;t are u&s;ed by others meerly for blindes, to bring about their de&s;ignes, and &s;o do very much towards them, by doing nothing but &s;tanding &s;till.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="55" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect; 55.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> I Knew before I heard of your name, that the &s;ame thing which <HI>in &s;en&s;u Phy&s;ico</HI> is a Pa&s;&s;ion or Privation, may <HI>in &s;en&s;u Morali,</HI> i. e. <HI>reputativ&egrave;,</HI> be Action or an In&s;trument. But I ever &s;uppo&s;ed that as it is <HI>Moraliter vel reputa|tiv&egrave; In&s;trumentum,</HI> &s;o hath it <HI>Moralem vel reputativam action<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m.</HI> 2. That [&s;ome men are u&s;ed by others meerly for blinds about their de&s;igns] this blinde work of Mr. <HI>K.</HI> doth partly per&s;wade me.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="56" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 56.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. <HI>VVHen he &s;aith [how can the act of believing (which hath no other being, but to be an Act) be po&s;&s;ibly a Pa&s;&s;ive In&s;trument? Doth this act ef|fect by &s;uffering? Or can wi&s;e men have a gro&s;&s;er conceit then this?] I an&s;wer that this Act is equivalent to &s;uffering, as con&s;isting chiefly in a reliance on Chri&s;ts righteou&s;ne&s;se, without exalting our thoughts against it, captivating our thoughts to it, renouncing all thoughts of our own righteou&s;ne&s;s, yea all thoughts that are too apt to ri&s;e again&s;t it from the con&s;ideration of our own righteou&s;ne&s;s; howbeit for the</HI> form <HI>it be an action, yet</HI> virtually <HI>this action is a &s;uffering our &s;elves to be led by the Spirit of God, and by his Authority against the &s;ugge&s;tions of our own rea&s;on.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="56" TYPE="section">
<PB N="120" REF="71">
<HEAD>&sect;. 56.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. TWo things you have here to prove: 1. That the Act of faith is a &s;uffering. 2. That by &s;uffering it effecteth our pardon or Ju&s;ti|fication as an In&s;trumental Cau&s;e. For the former, you &s;ay [It is equivalent to &s;uffering.] Reply 1. It &s;eems then it is but equivalent. 2. Wherein it is equi|valent? 1. As to its nature? That were a &s;trange act. 2. Or in excellency: &s;o it is more then equivalent to &s;uffering. 3. Or is it as to its u&s;e and end? I ea|&s;ily grant you that the u&s;e of this Action is to make us capable &s;ubjects of pardon, or fit ob<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ects for Gods act, and di&s;po&s;ed matter to receive Ju&s;tification; as Mr. <HI>Benjamin Woodbridge</HI> hath plainly and truly, though briefly taught you in his Ser|mon of Ju&s;tification (think not much to learn of him in that, and other points there touched.) If you have a minde to call this <HI>Pa&s;&s;io Reputativa vel Moralis,</HI> I will not contend with you: it being <HI>Conditio activa ad Receptionem propriam requi&s;i|ta.</HI> Doubtle&s;s the Reliance and Renunciation which you mention, are actions. 3. And where you &s;ay, that it is [<HI>Virtually</HI> a &s;uffering our &s;elves to be led by the Spirit, though it be an action for the form] I never heard before of an Action immanent which was <HI>virtually</HI> &s;uffering: and that from &s;uch a Cau&s;e as Authori|ty is: Sure it is &s;omewhat more then &s;uch a &s;uffering; and therefore it is new Lo|gick to &s;ay, that it is <HI>Virtually</HI> &s;uffering. Though as I &s;aid, if you have a minde to call it a Moral or Reputative Pa&s;&s;ion, I will not contend. 4. But then what a &s;uffering is that you imagine it? I thought you would have come nearer the mat|ter, and have &s;aid that it is <HI>Receptio Chri&s;ti, vel Ju&s;titiae donatae:</HI> but you &s;ay, It is a &s;uffering our &s;elves to be led by Gods Spirit and authority.</P>
<P N="2">2. But now I come to the great bu&s;ine&s;s, I finde you as mute as a fi&s;h: You had another A&s;&s;ertion to prove, [that this Act doth by &s;uffering Effect our par|don:] On this lay all the controver&s;ie: and of this I finde not a word. I pray you remember by the next to &s;atisfie your Reader, that [this Act which is Vir|tually a &s;uffering our &s;elves to be led by Gods Spirit, and by his Authority again&s;t the &s;ugge&s;tion of our own Rea&s;on, doth by that &s;uffering effect our pardon or Ju|&s;tification.] Nay, I thought if you had made it but a Receiving in&s;trument, as you phra&s;e it, that it had been the Receiving Chri&s;t or Righteou&s;ne&s;s, and not the &s;uffering our &s;elves to be led by Gods Spirit and Authority again&s;t the &s;ugge&s;tions of rea&s;on, which (<HI>qua talis</HI>) would have been affirmed the in|&s;trument of our Ju&s;tification? But you &s;aw not what Roman doctrine this im|plieth.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="57" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 57.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. <HI>VVHereas he adds [4. And la&s;tly, I believe with</HI> Schibler, <HI>that there is no &s;uch thing as a Pa&s;&s;ive In&s;trument] I believe he bath &s;een a man often hold up a fire-&s;hovel to receive coles, which fire-&s;hovel is an Instrument, but in that ca&s;e meerly pa&s;&s;ive, and he hath &s;een que&s;tionle&s;s boyes at trap hold up their hats to receive the ball; here their hats are In&s;truments, but meerly Pa&s;&s;ive. What examples</HI> Burger&s;dicius <HI>or</HI> Keckerman <HI>give, is not con&s;iderable; What if they mi&s;took in their instances of Pa&s;|&s;ive In&s;truments? Follows it there are none?</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="57" TYPE="section">
<PB N="121" REF="71">
<HEAD>&sect;. 57.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. THe Smith may call his fire-&s;hovel, a Pa&s;&s;ive In&s;trument, and &s;o your boy may do his hat. I will allow them both that name among Mechanicks, Rhetoricians, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> but I &s;hall not believe that Logicians &s;hould &s;o call them, or that either of them is an in&s;trumental efficient Cau&s;e, or do effect by &s;uffering, till you have better proved it, then this put-off comes to. 2. I have found no rea&s;on yet in all the reading of your labours, to judge your Logick more con&s;iderable then <HI>Burger&s;dicius</HI> and <HI>Keckermans;</HI> or that you are likely to finde out fit in&s;tances, where they could finde none. 3. <HI>Callovius</HI> and many more are of the &s;ame opinion as <HI>Schibler</HI> in this.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="58" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 58.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. B&V;t &s;ay you [the In&s;trument is an Efficient Cau&s;e: all efficiency is by action: and that which doth not act, doth not effect:] You have forgotten that the great In&s;truments of the Roman State, did all by doing Nothing.</HI> Unus homo nobis cun|ctando re&s;tituit rem. <HI>Their &s;trength, &s;aith the Prophet, is to fit &s;till.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="58" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 58.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. SUch a thing I now perceive may be: for I think when you have here done all, you had done more if you had done nothing.</P>
<P N="2">2. I an&s;wered enough to this before. What if the Con&s;equents of doing no|thing prove better, then if there had been Action, and thereupon you do call [do|ing nothing] by the name of [Action?] Is it therefore Action indeed? Or if you therefore a&s;cribe a Cau&s;ality to it, is it therefore a Cau&s;e indeed? I &s;ay again, as &s;uch are <HI>Moraliter vel Reputativ&egrave; in&s;trumentae,</HI> i. e. <HI>Cau&s;ae efficientis in&s;tru|mentales, cum Phy&s;ic&egrave; &amp; rever&acirc; non &s;unt;</HI> &s;o morally and reputatively they are A|gents, and therefore not to be called Pa&s;&s;ive in&s;truments.</P>
<P N="3">3. Let it be ob&s;erved what a &s;uperficial kinde of an&s;wers Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s Chair doth vouch&s;afe us? He dur&s;t neither plainly deny, that an in&s;trument is an efficient Cau&s;e; nor yet that all efficiency is by Action: and yet &s;atisfies him&s;elf with the touch of an alien in&s;tance, implying the denial of the later.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="59" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 59.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. [<HI>INdeed (&s;aith Mr.</HI> Baxter <HI>in the clo&s;e) as &s;ome extend the u&s;e of the word, In&s;trument, you may call almo&s;t any thing an In&s;trument, which is any way conducible to the production of the effect under the fir&s;t Cau&s;e, and &s;o you may call faith an In&s;trument.] Belike it is</HI> In&s;trumentum quoddam vocatum, <HI>what you will in the Lawyers Latine, and you mu&s;t be beholden to that to make the New Covenant Gods In&s;trument in Ju&s;tification.</HI> In&s;trumentum Novum <HI>for</HI> Te&s;tamentum Novum, <HI>&s;ay the Criticks.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="59" TYPE="section">
<PB N="122" REF="72">
<HEAD>&sect;. 59.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. THe&s;e words I &s;poke, to &s;ignifie my re&s;olution, not to contend about words; and if any man will u&s;e the term [In&s;trument] improper|ly, and tell us his meaning, and not make it the efficient Cau&s;e of our pardon and Ju&s;tification, much le&s;s make the Papi&s;ts believe, that in that notion lieth the very kernel of the Prote&s;tant doctrine about Ju&s;tification by faith alone, I am content &s;uch a man &s;peak as he thinks meet, allowing others the like liberty. To this Mr. <HI>K.</HI> gives this learned an&s;wer [Belike its <HI>In&s;trumentum quoddam vocatum,</HI> what you will in the Lawyers Latine] Out of which words, or any yet &s;poken by him, if the Reader can pick an argument to prove faith the in&s;trumental Cau&s;e of forgivene&s;s or Ju&s;tification, let him make his be&s;t of it. A je&s;t is readier then a good Argument.</P>
<P N="2">2. It ill becomes any Preacher of it, to deny or je&s;t at the in&s;trumentality of of Gods Law, Covenant or Te&s;tament. It bewrayes that which you might with more credit have concealed. If Gods Deed of Gift of Chri&s;t, Life, Par|don, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> be any Cau&s;e of our Right to Chri&s;t, Life, Pardon, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> then is it an in&s;trumental efficient Cau&s;e, con&s;tituting that Right: (Let Mr. <HI>K.</HI> tell me what other cau&s;e it is, if not this.) But &s;ome Cau&s;e it is: Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Onely as Relations have an imperfect Being, &s;o the Cau&s;ing of them is an&s;werable to it. If Gods Deed of Gift, Law, Covenant, Te&s;tament, be no proper in&s;trument, then there is no &s;uch thing as a proper in&s;trument known in Laws, Politicks, Mo|rality, for the conveying of any Right. As <HI>Sayrus</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Clav. Regi&acirc; li. 6. cap. 6. n. 23. p. 330. Natura in&s;tituit voces &amp; &s;igna tanquam In&s;trumenta &amp; media fine quibus nu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> homo alteri non po&s;&s;it obligari.</HI> Not only are they certain In&s;truments when u&s;ed, but is commonly held that they are &s;o nece&s;&s;ary in&s;truments, that by a meet mental Conception without words a man is not obliged to another. So &s;aith <HI>Al|main. in 4. d. 15. q. 2. Jo&s;. Angles in flor. 4. &s;ent. q. de voto art. 2. diffic. 4. Armil. verb. promi&s;&s;io. Petr. de Arragon. 2. 2. q. 88. art. 3. dub. 4. Mich. Salon. in 22. to. 1. q. 5. de domino art. 2. dub. 1. Lud. Lopez. p. 2. in&s;tr. con&s;. cap. 30. Emanuel Rodriquez part. 2. Sum. c. 27. Concl.</HI> And its certain that conceptions give no Right to men, though the conceiver of a promi&s;e may <HI>coram Deo</HI> be obliged.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="60" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 60.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. <HI>THis were not worth the in&s;i&s;ting on, but to &s;hew with what tools Mr.</HI> Bax|ter <HI>endeavours to break the works of &s;o many eminent Master-builders, and with what formidable weapons he valiantly &s;ets him&s;elf again&s;t tho&s;e great Cham|pions.</HI>
<Q><L>&mdash;Sic dama Leonem</L>
<L>In&s;equitur, audetque Viro concurrere Virgo&mdash;</L></Q> <HI>O the mi&s;erable fate of poor Divinity! that must be put to School to</HI> Burger&s;dicius <HI>and</HI> Keckermans Logick! <HI>and be &s;o beaten for grea&s;ie</HI> Jack Seaton! <HI>Had not Mr.</HI> Baxter <HI>been as they &s;ay he was <GAP DESC="foreign">, he had not &s;et &s;o high a price on the&s;e beggarly ele|ments, as to let them make</HI> utramque paginam <HI>in this noble controver&s;ie.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="60" TYPE="section">
<PB N="123" REF="72">
<HEAD>&sect;. 60.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> VVHether this merry Rhetorical Triumph were grounded on &s;uch a reall victory as the man dreams of, or whether premi&s;es and Con|clu&s;ion be any other then a meer Rap&s;ody of windy o&s;tentation, I mu&s;t leave to the judgement of the impartial, under&s;tanding Reader. I confe&s;s they &s;hew that he is not only unrea&s;onable; for <HI>ridere</HI> is proper to a Rea&s;onable Creature. I had thought to have given a particular an&s;wer to each pa&s;&s;age in this Paragraph, but upon review I finde that the Replying to &s;uch like, hath occa&s;ioned more iro|nies and &s;harp pa&s;&s;ages then I dare approve; and therefore I think it be&s;t to &s;ay nothing to it, only to reminde him of the&s;e few things:</P>
<P N="1">1. That I will be none of his adver&s;ary, where he argues only to prove me ig|norant. It never came into my head to make it the Que&s;tion, whether Mr. <HI>K.</HI> or I were the more wi&s;e or learned man? I have much more ignorance then he is a|ware of.</P>
<P N="2">2. That yet I dare contend with him in point of veracity, if he u&s;e to do with others, as he doth with me, particularly to talk of [making <HI>utramque paginam</HI>] and to &s;corn at it no le&s;s then twelve times in five or &s;ix leaves, for my citing the&s;e Authours once or twice, and <HI>Schibler</HI> thrice in a whole book.</P>
<P N="3">3. That all is not Divinity that &s;uch Theologues maintain: For I think he is not Theology in the Ab&s;tract: and therefore its po&s;&s;ible to finde an errour in &s;uch a man as Mr. <HI>K.</HI> without Schooling or beating Divinity: Nor do I think that &s;ound Theology would feel it, though he had a knock or two more.</P>
<P N="4">4. That he proves out of <HI>Keckerman,</HI> or others &s;uch like, that two and two is four, doth not much abu&s;e Divinity by it: Nor he that cites them to &s;hew that all efficiency is by Action, though as learned a man as Mr. <HI>K.</HI> deny it. Nor do I finde Mr. <HI>K.</HI> having recour&s;e to the Bible to prove the contrary, <HI>viz.</HI> that there is efficiency without Action. And I think the Scripture Texts may be &s;oon numbred by which he attempts to prove Faith to be the in&s;trumental Cau&s;e of Ju&s;tification.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="61" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 61.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. HE hath one Que&s;tion more [But though Faith be not the In&s;trument of Ju|&s;tification, may it not be called the In&s;trument of Receiving Chri&s;t who Ju&s;tifies us? I do not (&s;aith he) &s;tick &s;o much at this &s;peech as at the former (we are beholden to you: &s;ome indulgence yet in this particular) Yet is it no proper or fit expre&s;&s;ion neither. For, 1. the Act of Faith which is it that ju&s;tifieth is our Actual Receiving of Chri&s;t, and therefore cannot be the In&s;trument of Receiving. To &s;ay our Receiving is the In&s;trument of our Receiving, is a bard &s;aying.] Be the act of Faith the actual Recei|ving of Chri&s;t: Why I wonder may not faith be &s;aid to be the In&s;trument of Receiving Chri&s;t? Is faith only an Act? I had thought it had been an Habit? And though the Re|ceiving be not the In&s;trument of Receiving Chri&s;t, as being the actual receiving of him; yet faith may very well be &s;o called: as though my receiving of a book be not the In&s;tru|ment of receiving it, yet the hand may without any great ab&s;urdity be allowed that name.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="61" TYPE="section">
<PB N="124" REF="73">
<HEAD>&sect;. 61.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. I Argued, that if faith be the In&s;trument of Receiving Chri&s;t, then either the Act of faith, or the Habit: but neither the Act nor Ha|bit: Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> To prove that the act of faith is not the in&s;trument of Re|ceiving Chri&s;t, I u&s;ed the words that he here cites. What doth this Learned man but confute this by &s;aying, that the Habit is the In&s;trument? [I had thought (&s;aith he) faith had been a Habit.] Thus he confutes me, who argue that the Act is not the In&s;trument, by &s;aying that the Habit is. I think he that is <GAP DESC="foreign"> need not much lament that he lo&s;t the benefit of &s;uch a di&s;putants tutor|age, if he be never in a more waking mood then here.</P>
<P N="2">2. His Rhetorick is the be&s;t part of his an&s;wer. But when will he prove that the Habit of faith &s;o farre differs from the act, and both from the &s;oul, as that the Habit may as truly or fitly be called the in&s;trument of Believing or Receiving, as the Hand is of its Act or the effect? If his &s;imilitude would prove any thing it would rather be that the Faculty is the In&s;trument, then that the Habit is: which yet I finde him not here attempt: I think that the Habit of faith, and the act are not of &s;o different natures as is the Hand and its act.</P>
<P N="3">3. Let it &s;till be remembred, that I do not much regard how this Que&s;tion is determined (for which Mr. <HI>K.</HI> doth &s;o humbly tell me, he is beholden,) it being much different from the former Que&s;tion. For in the former, the term [In&s;tru|ment] is taken properly for an in&s;trumental efficient Cau&s;e, in which &s;en&s;e I de|ny that faith ju&s;tifieth: But here it is taken Metaphorically or Vulgarly, and not properly: For that which effecteth not is not an in&s;trumental efficient Cau&s;e. And that which they call an In&s;trument of Receiving, is in Naturals but <HI>Di&s;po|&s;itio materiae,</HI> and in Morals, but <HI>Di&s;po&s;itio Moralis, vel Reputativa, vel Actus ad Receptionem pa&s;&s;ivam, propri<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m, veram nece&s;&s;arius;</HI> and in our pre&s;ent ca&s;e, &s;trictly nothing: but a Condition. Now if any will be plea&s;ed to &s;peak &s;o vulgarly and improperly, as to call &s;uch a Condition, or Aptitude Moral or Natu|ral [an In&s;trument of Receiving] &s;o he do not build any un&s;ound Do|ctrine upon it, I do again profe&s;&s;e that I will not contend with him. But the Rea&s;ons why I thought it nece&s;&s;ary for all that, to contradict the common Do|ctrine of faiths being the In&s;trument of Ju&s;tification, I have fully manife&s;ted in an&s;wer to other Brethren.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="62" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 62.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. <HI>B&V;t &s;econdly, &s;aith Mr.</HI> Baxter [<HI>The &s;eed or Habit of faith cannot fitly be called an In&s;trument, 1. The &s;anctified faculty it &s;elf cannot be the In&s;tru|ment, it being the &s;oul it &s;elf, and not any thing really distinct from it, as</HI> Scotus, D' Orbel|li<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, Scaliger, <HI>&amp;c. Dr.</HI> Jack&s;on, <HI>Mr.</HI> Pemble <HI>think, and Mr.</HI> Ball <HI>que&s;tions. 2. The Holine&s;s of the faculties, is not their In&s;trument: For, 1. it is nothing but them&s;elves rectified, and not a Being &s;o di&s;tinct as may be called their In&s;trument. 2. Who ever cal|led Habits or Di&s;po&s;itions the &s;ouls Instruments? The Aptitude of a Cau&s;e to produce its effect, cannot be called, The In&s;trument of it. You may as well call a mans Life the In&s;trument of Acting, or the &s;harpne&s;s of the knife, the knives In&s;trument, as to call our Holine&s;&s;e or Habitual faith, the In&s;trument of Receiving Chri&s;t.] I an&s;wer, you pro|ceed by certain &s;teps, and to deny the Habit of faith to be the In&s;trument of Receiving
<PB N="125" REF="73"> Chri&s;t, you &s;ay, 1. The &s;anctified faculty it &s;elf cannot be the In&s;trument. And 1. What if it cannot? Who reckons the Habit of faith for a &s;anctified faculty? This is that which &s;anctifies the faculties: The faculty is of one</HI> Species <HI>of quality,</HI> potentia naturalis; <HI>faith which &s;anctifies of another,</HI> habitus. <HI>You are, it &s;eems, now and then out in your Logick, as much as you trouble us with it, and had need review your</HI> Burger&s;|dicius <HI>and</HI> Keckerman. 2. <HI>How prove you that the &s;anctified faculty is the &s;oul it &s;elf, In &s;tead of the few Names you mu&s;ter up, I may bring you thou&s;ands that are against it: and yet a few Rea&s;ons weigh more then all the&s;e great Names. If the faculty be the &s;ame with the &s;oul, then the Holine&s;&s;e of the faculty cannot be really di&s;tinct from the &s;oul, for that this Holine&s;s is to be received into the faculties; and if no faculty be really di&s;tinct from the &s;oul, then is there no receiving into it any thing really di&s;tinct from the &s;oul, and if Holine&s;&s;e be not Really di&s;tinct from the &s;oul, a holy &s;oul, and an unholy one, are not Really distinct, and &s;o you &s;eem to imply in your &s;econd, when you &s;ay</HI>&mdash;</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="62" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 62.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. Mr. <HI>K.</HI> yieldeth, if I am able to under&s;tand him, that the Act of faith is not the In&s;trument of Receiving Chri&s;t: and he layes it on the Habit. Before we proceed here ob&s;erve,</P>
<P N="1">1. That the Generality of Divines that plead for faiths in&s;trumentality, &s;ay, that it is not the Habit, but the Act of faith that ju&s;tifieth: (I &s;aid &s;o too when I wrote my Aphori&s;ms, taking it on tru&s;t, but I now recant it.) If that be &s;o, then they cannot (as they do) argue thus: [Faith is the In&s;trument of Re|ceiving Chri&s;t and his Righteou&s;ne&s;s: Therefore faith ju&s;tifieth as an In&s;tru|ment] becau&s;e they &s;peak of the Habit in the Antecedent, and of the act in the Con&s;equent; and &s;o by [faith] mean not in both the &s;ame thing: and &s;o there are <HI>quatuor termini.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Ob&s;erve, that it is commonly granted, that the Habit of faith is not al|wayes in act: as in &s;leep, and when we are wholly taken up with thoughts of an ali|ene &s;ubject, and all the time of Infancy (according to them that think Infants have the Habit of faith.) This being &s;o, it mu&s;t needs follow, that faith is not alwayes the In&s;trument of Receiving Chri&s;t, and of Ju&s;tifying: (nay perhaps, but &s;eldome comparatively) For the Cau&s;ality of the In&s;trument is in Action, and faith is not alwayes acting. If therefore faith ju&s;tifie as an In&s;trument, and we are alway ju&s;tified, and yet faith be not alway an In&s;trument, then either we are not ju&s;tified by faith, but &s;ome other way, at tho&s;e times when faith acteth not, or el&s;e <HI>ce&s;sante Caus&acirc; non ce&s;&s;at effectus:</HI> which though in &s;ome ca&s;es it may be true, yet here it cannot: becau&s;e the effect being but a <HI>Jus ad rem,</HI> a tran&s;cenden|tal Relation, it hath no neare&s;t Cau&s;e, but its Foundation and Subject: and when tho&s;e cea&s;e the Relation cea&s;eth: And none affirmeth that <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">aith is a Re|mote cau&s;e of Receiving Chri&s;t, that is, Right to Chri&s;t (with his benefits,) And if it were, yet the <HI>Fundamentum Relationis</HI> mu&s;t have the &s;u&s;tentation of a continued Cau&s;e. But in the way that I affirm faith to ju&s;tifie, as a moral Con|dition only (having no Cau&s;ality) all the&s;e inconveniences, or rather contradi|ctions are avoided: For it being the meer will of the Donor, that createth the neare&s;t nece&s;&s;ity of the Condition, and &s;o requires the Condition to &s;uch an end, he may make either act or Habit the Condition, and may make the act the Con|dition of Beginning our Right to Chri&s;t and Life, and the Habit continued, to be the Condition of continuing that Right, even when the act is intermitted:
<PB N="126" REF="74"> and yet the effect may &s;till continue, becau&s;e the Will of the Donor, and the Law or Covenant which is his In&s;trument, do both continue; and it is they that are the efficient Cau&s;es.</P>
<P N="3">3. Ob&s;erve al&s;o, that both the man for whom Mr. <HI>K.</HI> is here &s;o zealous, <HI>viz.</HI> Mr. <HI>P<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">emble,</HI> and many more, do make the Habit of faith to be nothing el&s;e, but our New Life, our Holine&s;s of the renewed faculties, the Spirit of God in us, and that all Graces are in the Habit and &s;eed but one, and &s;o accordingly it fol|lows, that it is our internal Sanctification or Holine&s;s that is the In&s;trument of our Ju&s;tification: A Doctrine that I think the&s;e men will &s;carce own upon con&s;i|deration.</P>
<P N="4">4. Ob&s;erve al&s;o, that hence it will follow, that it is other graces that ju&s;tifie in&s;trumentally as well as faith: becau&s;e they &s;ay, it is the Habit that is the In&s;tru|ment: and this Habit is but one: not one Habit of faith, and another of Love, Hope, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> but all one: and this one Habit ju&s;tifies, even when men are Infants, or a&s;leep, and do not act.</P>
<P N="5">5. That which is now commonly called, the Habit of Grace, is in Scri|pture called, [the Spirit in us:] and &s;o the holy Gho&s;t is made our in&s;trument of Ju&s;tification.</P>
<P><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. Now to M^r <HI>K</HI>'s words here. In the words of mine which he cites, I do both indirectly, or <HI>in tran&s;itu</HI> confute a third opinion, <HI>viz.</HI> that the &s;anctified facul|ties are the In&s;trument, though the &s;anctity of the faculties be not: and directly I argue <HI>&agrave; forti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">re,</HI> that if the &s;anctified Faculties them&s;elves may not properly be called the In&s;trument of Receiving Chri&s;t, much le&s;&s;e can the &s;anctity of the faculties be &s;o called: But, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Here|upon this too learned man feigns me to think, or &s;ay, or imply, the Habit of faith to be a &s;anctified faculty; and with &s;eeming &s;eriou&s;ne&s;s fals a &s;chooling me, and tels me, that [the faculty is of one <HI>Species</HI> of quality, and faith of another;] yea proceeds in his dream as confidently as if he were waking, to tell me, that I [am now and then out in my Logick, and had need to review my <HI>Burger&s;dicius</HI> and <HI>Keck|erman.</HI>] But would he a little rub his eyes, I would de&s;ire him to tell his Reader, where I did directly or indirectly &s;ay, that Faith is a &s;anctified faculty? And I would know of him, whether a man &s;hould not under&s;tand a matter before he make an an&s;wer to it!</P>
<P>Next, it &s;eems, he expected I &s;hould have proved, that the faculty is the &s;oul it &s;elf: And would not that have been as wi&s;e a Digre&s;&s;ion, and as Nece&s;&s;ary, as is this of his? The Scope of my words was but this, <HI>q. d.</HI> [It is a controvert|ed, doubtful point, Whether the Faculties are di&s;tinct from the &s;oul, as <HI>Res &amp; Res,</HI> and therefore not fit to bear &s;uch a weight as tho&s;e that I oppo&s;e do lay upon the affirmative] (and my own opinion inclineth to the Negative: yet &s;o as I dare not be &s;o pre&s;umptuous as confidently to interpo&s;e among &s;o many learned men, and maintain my own opinion as certain truth.) As wi&s;e a man as Mr. <HI>K.</HI> (and in my opinion an eight at lea&s;t above him) thought the like an&s;wer to be good in another ca&s;e. <HI>Davenant. Determ. Qu 37. pag. 166. Quod philo&s;ophantur voluntatem &amp; intellectum e&s;&s;e duas potentias reip&s;a di&s;tinctas, dogma Philo&s;ophicum e&s;t, ab omnibus haud receptum, &amp; Theologicis dogmatibus firmandis aut infirm<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ndis, fundamentum mi|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">im&egrave; idoncum.</HI> And he knows, that the two Que&s;tions, 1. Whether the faculties be <HI>realiter inter &s;o di&s;tinct as?</HI> And, 2. Whether they be <HI>realiter ab anima di&s;tinctas?</HI> u&s;e to &s;tand and fall together in the Determination.</P>
<P>For the few names that he tels me I mu&s;ter up, its like he may know that it were
<PB N="127" REF="74"> ea&s;ie to give him a farre larger mu&s;ter roll, e&s;pecially of the Scoti&s;ts. And as for the thou&s;ands that he &s;aith he may bring again&s;t it (no doubt he means Writers) I confe&s;s plainly, that he hath &s;o farre lo&s;t his credit with me, that I do not believe him. For though I know they are many, yet I do not think he hath read many thou&s;ands on all &s;ides of that Subject. But if he have indeed read &s;o many thou|&s;and books of that one point, alas, how many hath he read in all? No wonder if poor <HI>Burger&s;dicius, Schibler</HI> or <HI>Suarez</HI> be de&s;pi&s;ed by him. It may be that's the rea&s;on that both the margin and Text of his book are &s;o naked of quotations; he having read &s;o many thou&s;ands that he knew not which to preferre, or where to beginne; or el&s;e would have few mens names to his Works but his own (except as Adver&s;aries) le&s;t they &s;hould &s;hare of the honour. Nay, if he &s;hould have &s;aid or meant, that there are thou&s;ands that &s;o write, which others have read though he have not, I doubt he cannot prove it true.</P>
<P>For his great weighing Rea&s;ons, I will honour them as &s;oon as I can &s;ee them, but he had little Rea&s;on to expect me to Rea&s;on that Ca&s;e. If this that he next addes be one of his few Rea&s;ons, that weigh &s;o much, I mu&s;t tell him, Every man to his minde. I doubt he overvalues his own Rea&s;ons: For my part, one thou|&s;and great Names, yea one, will weigh as much with me, as this his Rea&s;on. For, 1. I deny his Con&s;equence, and &s;ay, that the Holine&s;s may be Really di|&s;tinct from the &s;oul, though the faculties are not; and that Holine&s;s may im|mediately inhere in the &s;oul without the mediation of faculties really di&s;tinct from it. It had been ea&s;ie to have &s;een the nece&s;&s;ity of giving &s;ome an&s;wer to this de|niall. As wi&s;e a man as mo&s;t we have (if I conjecture not ami&s;s) and a publick Profe&s;&s;our in <HI>Oxford,</HI> and now re&s;ident where Mr. K. had his Chait, I mean Mr. <HI>Wallis,</HI> &s;aith thus: [And &s;o, however it may be true, that a faculty or natural Power may be &s;o far the &s;ame with the &s;oul, as that it differ only <HI>ratione ratiocinat&acirc;,</HI> yet in a Habit we mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity grant a di&s;tinction <HI>ex parte rei:</HI> For where there may be a real &s;eparation, and not only mental, there mu&s;t needs be granted a di&s;tinction <HI>in re.</HI>]</P>
<P>But what if I grant Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s harde&s;t Conclu&s;ion that Holine&s;s is not Really di|&s;tinct from the &s;oul, nor a holy &s;oul from an unholy as [Really] is taken for a di|&s;tinction <HI>inter Rem &amp; Rem.</HI> We &s;hall &s;ee anon what danger would be in it. But then Mr. K. mu&s;t be &s;o hone&s;t, as not to per&s;wade any that I therefore deny a Real di&s;tinction, as [Real] is oppo&s;ed to feigned, mental, called <HI>Rationis,</HI> Rela|tive, or Denominative.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="63" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 63.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. <HI>YOu &s;ay [The Holine&s;s of the faculties is not their In&s;trument, for it is nothing but them&s;elves rectified, and not a Being &s;o di&s;tinct as may be called their In&s;trument.] But is it nothing but them&s;elves rectified? I had thought it had been the Rectifying of them, which</HI> pote&s;t ade&s;&s;e &amp; abe&s;&s;e &s;ine &s;ubjecti interitu? <HI>and con&s;equently it is not the faculties them&s;elves. As well you may &s;ay, that the rightne&s;&s;e of a &s;tick is nothing but the &s;tick made right; and the whitene&s;&s;e of the wall, nothing but the wall made white</HI> Quis tulerit Gracchos &s;ive Graculos!</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="63" TYPE="section">
<PB N="128" REF="75">
<HEAD>&sect;. 63.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. ALl that I a&s;&s;ert is, that Holine&s;s differs not from the faculties, as <HI>Res &amp; Res,</HI> but as <HI>Res &amp; modus.</HI> 2. I think the ab&s;tract ha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">h no exi&s;tence, but as in the Concrete, but is a meer Notion: Seeing therefore that is &s;o, I think the propere&s;t denomination, as mo&s;t agreeable to the thing denomi|nated, is to &s;peak of it as <HI>in Concreto.</HI> 3. You did therefore too &s;uddenly &s;tart up into your wondering interrogation, as if there were any contradiction between tho&s;e two &s;ayings! As if he that &s;aith [a Rectified faculty: a white wall] did not as truly expre&s;&s;e the Rectitude, and the whitene&s;s, as you that expre&s;s them <HI>in Concreto!</HI> It is too gro&s;&s;e a fiction, if (as you &s;eem) you would make men be|lieve that I intend to prove the Rectitude to be <HI>Formaliter</HI> the &s;ame with the Fa|culty or &s;oul! My meaning is plainly, that Holine&s;s is nothing but the &s;ouls Re|ctitude, and though I expre&s;&s;ed it in the Concrete, I &s;ay not, that it is the Fa|culty as a Faculty, but as Rectified; &s;hewing in the next words what it is that I exclude, <HI>viz.</HI> [A Being &s;o di&s;tinct, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>] 4. May not a Relation or <HI>Mo|dus</HI> be pre&s;ent or ab&s;ent <HI>&s;ine &s;ubjecti interitu?</HI> though it be not a di&s;tinct Thing?</P>
<P>For your <HI>Quis tulerit?</HI> I Reply: Pride makes men impatient. Did you think no more highly of your own Note, then &s;ome wi&s;e ob&s;ervers do, you would in|&s;tead of your impatient <HI>Quis tulerit,</HI> have compa&s;&s;ionated your &s;elf and me, and &s;it down by me, with a <HI>Nos Graculi.</HI> However, why &s;hould you be &s;o impati|ent with one &s;o farre below you? Will you &s;et your wit to the wit of a <HI>Gra|culu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">?</HI></P>
<P>But I will make bold to try your Patience further. Will you hear the voice of the afore-&s;aid Learned and Judicious man M^r <HI>Wallis,</HI> who is now in the &s;ame Ne&s;t that you were bred in? See his <HI>Truth Tried,</HI> chap. 8. pag. 44, 45. [A Habit there|fore whether Infu&s;ed or Acquired, being but a facilitation of the faculty, cannot be a Thing di&s;tinct from that faculty, but only a <HI>Modus</HI> of it, which hath not in it &s;elf a Po&s;itive Ab&s;olute Being of its own, but is a Modification of another Being: And its Phy&s;ical Being, <HI>Exi&s;tentia Rei,</HI> mu&s;t be the &s;ame with the Being of that which is thus Modificated: For it is not <HI>ip&s;um exi&s;tens,</HI> but <HI>Modus exi&s;ten|di:</HI> And this Manner of Exi&s;ting, hath not an Exi&s;tence of its own, di&s;tinct from the Exi&s;tence of that which doth Exi&s;t in this Manner. Yet its Formal and Metaphy&s;ical Being is di&s;tinct. Yea and its Phy&s;ical Exi&s;tence, &s;uch as it is ca|pable of, that is, <HI>Exi&s;tentia modi;</HI> for not being <HI>Res,</HI> but <HI>Modus Rei,</HI> we mu&s;t not expect that it &s;hould have any Exi&s;tence of its own, be&s;ides the Exi&s;tence of a <HI>Modus:</HI> and this <HI>Exi&s;tentia modi</HI> is the actual modificating of the Thing Exi|&s;ting after this Manner: The which Exi&s;tence, though it be not <HI>Exi&s;tentia Rei,</HI> yet is it a real Exi&s;tence (<HI>Exi&s;tentia in re</HI>) and not Mental: For the thing Exi|&s;tent is not only &s;uppo&s;ed to exi&s;t in this manner, but indeed doth &s;o, thus order|ed, thus modificated: And therefore that <HI>Modus</HI> doth actually and really modifi|cate, and is not only &s;uppo&s;ed &s;o to do. But if you will not admit with <HI>Scotus,</HI> &amp;c. And thus it is true which his Lord&s;hip &s;peaks, that Habitual Knowledge is No|thing but Light more or le&s;&s;e Glorious. It is Rea&s;on cleared: It's only <HI>Facultas facilitata,</HI> or <HI>Facultatis facilitas:</HI> And to this Faculty or Readine&s;s to operate, <HI>I cannot allow a Phy&s;ical Exi&s;tence of its own, as neither to any Habit what&s;oever, as be|ing but</HI> Modi, <HI>and not</HI> Entia: It's not a Being, but a Manner of Being: Not
<PB N="129" REF="75"> <HI>Ens,</HI> but <HI>Aliquid Entis.</HI> And I &s;hould ea&s;ily be per&s;waded to grant the &s;ame con|cerning all accidents what&s;oever, which have long &s;ince been called <HI>Entis entia:</HI> And however an Accident hath been accounted to be <HI>Res,</HI> and &s;o to have <HI>exi&s;ten|tiam Rei,</HI> yet not <HI>&s;ub&s;i&s;tentiam Rei.</HI>] So far M^r <HI>Wallis.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="64" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 64.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. SAy you [Who ever called Habits or Dispo&s;itions the &s;ouls In&s;truments? The Aptitude of a Cau&s;e to produce its effect, cannot be called its Instrument.] I An&s;wer and yield you, that ordinarily it is not &s;o: In all Acquired Habits, there is meerly an Aptitude gotten: but by <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">aith which is an infu&s;ed Habit, there is an Ability gotten; this being indeed a Habit, but a Habit equivalent to a new Faculty; and &s;o we hear of a new heart and new &s;pirit, and without faith a man can no more receive Chri&s;t nor do ought towards it, then a dead man can walk or &s;peak, and &s;o it gives life to the &s;oul in regard of all &s;piritual operations: and though life cannot be &s;aid to be an In&s;tru|ment, yet I hope that which gives life may; as doth faith, which is as the &s;oul to the &s;oul in all its holy and heavenly thoughts and de&s;ires: Life cannot be &s;aid to be an In|&s;trument: for Life as Life is no cau&s;e at all, but an Union of tho&s;e cau&s;es which are requi|red to the making up of the</HI> Animatum.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="64" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 64.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. IF Habits were never &s;o properiy to be called the &s;ouls in&s;truments, yet this reacheth not the Que&s;tion, whether they may properly be called (<HI>Logic&egrave; loquendo</HI>) in&s;truments of Receiving when they are not in&s;truments Effe|cting. I did therefore give them too much advantage in this arguing.</P>
<P N="2">2. If you grant that acquired Habits are not to be called the &s;ouls in&s;truments&punc; and yet maintain that infu&s;ed are, you mu&s;t give &s;ome good rea&s;on from the difference.</P>
<P>Your rea&s;on is that [This is a Habit, but equivalent to a new faculty.] To which I Reply, 1. What rea&s;on is this? When I even now &s;aid, That [the &s;anctified faculty it &s;elf cannot be the In&s;trument] you never did gain&s;ay it: therefore if faith were a faculty or <HI>Potentia,</HI> it were not therefore the in&s;trument of Reception.</P>
<P N="2">2. The term [equivalent] is &s;o ambiguou<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, that you may yet make your words true or fal&s;e by an interpretation. 1. If you mean that infu&s;ed Habits are of the &s;ame nature, and of the &s;ame <HI>&s;pecies</HI> of quality, as the <HI>Potentia naturalis</HI> is, that &s;hould have been well proved, and not nakedly a&s;&s;erted. 2. If you mean that it performeth the &s;ame kinde of operations, and <HI>quoad u&s;um</HI> is equivalent, though not of the &s;ame nature or kinde; that al&s;o needs great p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">oof, &s;eeing it contradi|cteth common principles: The operation of things is &s;uch as the Being. 3. If you mean but that it is of equal nece&s;&s;ity to the Act, thats nothing to the purpo&s;e; for the nece&s;&s;ity proves it not an in&s;trument.</P>
<P>But I conceive the fir&s;t of the three is your &s;en&s;e, or el&s;e I cannot make &s;en&s;e of it; for the two later do no way tend to prove it an In&s;trument; and your words do mo&s;t plainly import that &s;en&s;e. But, if &s;o 1. Sure you forgot your own words but a little before, where you were plea&s;ed &s;o farre to School me, as to tell me that [the faculty is of one <HI>&s;pecies</HI> of quality, <HI>Potentia naturalis,</HI> faith which &s;ancti|fies of another, <HI>habitus.</HI>] And you gravely told me, I was now and then out in
<PB N="130" REF="76"> my Logick, and demanded of me, Who reckons the Habit of faith for a &s;ancti|fied Faculty? 2. How can you &s;ay &s;till that it is a Habit? For if it be truly a Habit, it mu&s;t be of the &s;ame <HI>&s;pecies</HI> of quality, as Habit; and admit the defini|tion of a Habit, and therefore not admit the definition of <HI>Potentia</HI> or <HI>Facultas,</HI> nor be of that <HI>species:</HI> and I &s;uppo&s;e you will not &s;ay it is of both, and be but one Quali<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">y: And I &s;uppo&s;e al&s;o that you will not &s;ay, it is <HI>Potentia &s;upernaturalis,</HI> and therefore may be of another <HI>&s;pecies</HI> then <HI>Potentia naturalis,</HI> &s;eeing it is not the way of efficiency, but the nature of the Effect or Thing produced, which diver&s;ifieth the <HI>species</HI> of Quality.</P>
<P>But becau&s;e I have great rea&s;on to think, that you will honour the &s;ame thing from D^r <HI>Twi&s;&s;e,</HI> which you contemn from me, will you be plea&s;ed to hear him &s;peak to you a few words: <HI>Contra Corvinum</HI> pag. 361. [<HI>Sed quia deventum e&s;t ad genus disputationis Philo&s;ophicum, agendum &s;ecundum principia Philo&s;ophiae, &s;ive natu|ralis, &s;ive moralis, &s;ive mixtae, cum doctoribus illis congrediamur. Itaque juxta Philo&s;o|phiam quid aliud e&s;t voluntas, quam Potentia volendi? rur&s;us quid aliud e&s;t objectum quam bonum? unicui&abque; ver&ograve; quod apparet; non Sybillae folium recito, &s;ed Ari&s;totelis magni illius naturae my&s;tae. Ergo non modo &s;ecundum Augu&s;tinum&punc; &s;ed &amp; &s;ecundum A|ri&s;totelem, naturae e&s;t hominum po&s;&s;e Velle quod ei appareat e&s;&s;e bonum, po&s;&s;e autem Velle quod vere bonum &s;it, ne Corvinus quidem hoc loco attribuit gratiae &s;uae communi. Ego vero ultra feror, &amp; ex Augu&s;tino di&s;puto, etiam po&s;&s;e credere, po&s;&s;e Deum amar<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, naturae e&s;&s;e hominum, juxta argumentationem &s;uperiorem: quod &amp; hoc argumento contendo. Si potentia credendi, vel quidvis boni faciendi, nobis accederet ex gratia, tum potentia &s;ub|jectum e&s;&s;et potentiae; naturalis gratio&s;ae, quod quidem hactenus pror&s;us e&s;t inauditum; nempe ut potentia volendi &s;ubjectum e&s;&s;et potentiae volendi. Voluntas fate<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">r e&s;t &s;ubjectum habituum; etiam omnis potentia rationalis, tam intellectus quam voluntas capax e&s;t ha|bituum, &s;ive naturalium, quibus magis idonea flat ad res naturales, tam intelligendas, quam agendas; &s;ive &s;upernaturalium, quibus elevetur ad objecta &s;upernaturalia&punc; At ut po|tentia aliqua capax &s;it potentiarum novarum, ne fando quidem hactenus accepi, priu&s;quam my&s;teria &s;ua mundo communicaruut Arminiani.</HI>] Many more places to the &s;ame pur|po&s;e might be cited out of D^r <HI>Twi&s;&s;e. Boethius de Trinit.</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Forma &s;implex &s;ub|jectum e&s;&s;e nequit:</HI> I leave you to gather the con&s;equent. What if I adde a Nove|li&s;t or two (they &s;hall not be unlearned) that M^r <HI>K.</HI> may &s;ee that a <HI>Graculus</HI> is not &s;o &s;olitary as a <HI>Phaenix?</HI></P>
<P><HI>Thom. White</HI> in his <HI>In&s;titut. Sacr. l. 1. lect. 13. p.</HI> 90. &s;aith, [<HI>Sed &amp; Habitum non e&s;&s;e aliud quam ip&s;um actum debilius manentem, omnin&ograve; constat, ex eo quod impre&s;&s;io fa|cta in &s;ubjectum&punc; ab&s;&abque; aliquo contrario de&s;truente, interire non pote&s;t: quia e&s;t modus ip&s;ius &s;ubjecti; &amp; quod alio modo imbui requirit novam actionem. Perman<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t ita&abque; actus donec a contrario de&s;truatur. In anima vero non e&s;t alia contrarietas quam contradicti|onis. Donec itaque retractetur, ex nece&s;&s;itate &s;emper manet actus, &amp; dicitur Habitus. Objicies, e&s;&s;e contra manife&s;tam experientiam quod actus maneant,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Respondetur, ma|nifestum e&s;&s;e po&s;t actum intellectus vel phanta&s;iae, potentiam manere in actu illius objecti q<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">od cognovit. Experientia enim docet, eam po&s;&s;e iterum cogno&s;cere quod vult; quod ante primam cognitionem non potuit,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Manet itaque impre&s;&s;io; id e&s;t actus &s;ub&s;tantia, quat<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nus en<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&punc; &amp; non tantum motio e&s;t: &V;nde cum in anima non po&s;&s;it e&s;&s;e motus&punc; ibi adaequate manet impre&s;&s;io; id e&s;t actus&punc; Quod autem non appareat manere, est quia ani|ma in corpore non agit ex &s;e&s;e; &s;ed praeci&s;e quatenus movetur a corpore, &s;eu per corpus; &amp; per con&s;equens non facit &s;en&s;um &s;ui, ni&s;i in effectu corporeo. Et hinc fit ut cum rur&s;us agi|mus, &s;entiamus actum faciliorem, vel fortiorem, vel directum &amp; modificatum ab anima, ratione prioris actus; quod arguit impre&s;&s;ionem manere: Sed modum ip&s;ius impre&s;&s;ionis,
<PB N="131" REF="76"> in &s;e&s;e, videre non po&s;&s;umas; &amp; ideo credimus ip&s;um actu non man<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">i&s;&s;e.</HI>] And <HI>pag. 94. [Ex quibus &s;atis clarum e&s;t, non e&s;&s;e habitus &s;upernaturales, &s;uis primis actubus praerequ<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 span">s&punc; neque e&s;&s;e per modum potentiarum, &s;ed omnino &s;icut habitus naturales; ni&s;i quod circa alia objecta <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">er&s;entur; &amp; di&s;currendum e&s;se pror&s;us de iis, ad modum quo philo&s;o|phamur de naturalibus, ob&s;ervatis specialibus differentiis.</HI>]</P>
<P>Yea there are &s;ome that think&punc; Habits are in the body. <HI>Taurellus in Philo&s;oph. Triumph&punc; pag.</HI> 52. &s;aith, [<HI>Vere tamen rem &s;iquis intueatur, nil habitus aliud &s;unt, quam acqui&s;ita quaedam intelligendi, vel alicujus expetendi promptitudo, non animae, &s;ed corpori ad&s;cribenda, cum per &s;e anima nec impediatur, nec aptior fieri po&s;&s;it, ad exercendas acti|ones, &s;ed quoniam corpore, ceu instrumento utitur&punc; fit ut ejus respectu, vel habiliores, vel ineptiores ad aliquid efficiendum &s;imus.</HI>] This he afterward thus correcteth, [<HI>Non corpori &s;olum, &s;ed animae etiam, videntur e&s;&s;e a&s;cribendi (habitus) Eundem intellectum &amp; agentem e&s;&s;e dicimus &amp; patientem: Per &s;e quidem actionum cau&s;a e&s;t, nec pati, nec impediri dicitur; &s;ed re&s;pectu ejus cui conjungitur corpori patitur, atque impeditur quo minus probe po&s;&s;it intelligere. Hac habitus accidentis ratione, non menti, &s;ed corporipri|mo po&s;&s;unt attribui; v<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">luti vice ver&s;a menti primo actiones, &s;ed corpori &s;ecundario ad&s;cri|buntur. Eadem voluntatis e&s;t ratio.</HI>]</P>
<P>I cite not the&s;e, as owning them; but to &s;hew Mr. <HI>K.</HI> that as learned men as he, have not the &s;ame thoughts of Habits, and therefore he &s;hould not be too ha|&s;tily confident: And I confe&s;s, as highly as I think of Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s learning, I do not think he truly and clearly knows what a Habit of the &s;oul is, nor wherein it is di|&s;tinct from the &s;oul, the faculties, and the act, and the intelligible <HI>&s;pecies:</HI> no nor a wi&s;er man then him&s;elf neither. Every man knows not &s;o much as he boa&s;t|eth of, or thinks he knoweth. (And <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ow likely then he is to know &s;o much of God as he here pretendeth to, we may ea&s;ily judge.) It was as wi&s;e a man as he that &s;aid [<HI>Nam quomodo intellectu Deum caput homo, qui ip&s;um intellectum &s;uum&punc; quo eum vult capere, nondum capit?</HI> Augu&s;t. <HI>de Trinitat. li. 5. cap.</HI> 1.]</P>
<P N="3">3. I ea&s;ily acknowledge that grace giveth &s;uch a <HI>power</HI> as is commonly called Moral, di&s;tinct from the natural faculties, as our corrupt e&s;tate contains an oppo|&s;ite impotency. But this i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> but an applying of the terms [Can] and [Cannot] [Power] and [Impotency] to Di&s;po&s;itions and Undi&s;po&s;edne&s;s, to Habits and their Privations.</P>
<P N="4">4. A new heart and &s;pirit, I ea&s;ily confe&s;s nece&s;&s;ary. But tho&s;e words do com|monly &s;ignifie in Scripture, only new Inclinations, Di&s;po&s;itions, Qualifications. It is a new heart, though only the old faculties and &s;ub&s;tance. I hope you will not follow <HI>Illyricus.</HI></P>
<P N="5">5. Where you &s;ay that [without faith a man can no more Receive Chri&s;t, nor do ought towards it, then a dead man can walk or &s;peak.] I Reply 1. That proves not faith to be equivalent to <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> <HI>Potentia vel facultas,</HI> any otherwi&s;e then that it is of as ab&s;olute nece&s;&s;ity, but not that it is of the &s;ame nature. If you &s;hew an illiterate man a Greek or Hebrew book, he can no more reade in it then a dead man, that is, both are truly <HI>in &s;en&s;u compo&s;ito</HI> impo&s;&s;ible: But yet it is but a habit that is wanting to one, and a power or faculty natural, to the other. And &s;o it may truly be &s;aid that a &s;inner cannot do well that hath accu&s;tomed to do evil, no more then a Leopard can change his &s;pots, or a Blackmoore his skin. Yet if you mean that &s;uch are equally di&s;tant from an actual change as a dead man, it is but a dead compari&s;on. A dead man wants both natural faculties, and an inclination or moral power. An unbeliever wants but one.</P>
<P N="2">2. That [without faith, &s;uch can no more do ought towards the receiving of
<PB N="132" REF="77"> Chri&s;t, then a dead man can walk or &s;peak] is a dead doctrine, like the re&s;t of Antinomiani&s;m, tending to licentiou&s;ne&s;s, and to &s;ubvert the precepts of the Go&s;pel, and the &s;alvation of men, and unfit for any man that &s;hall u&s;e the Name of Chri&s;t, much more unfit for a Divine. The Ranting &s;ect hath got the word too: and when they are reproved for wickedne&s;s, or per&s;waded to duty, they &s;ay, [<HI>What can the creature do?</HI>] To go out of an Alehou&s;e or Whorehou&s;e, and to go to hear the Go&s;pel preached, is &s;omewhat <HI>towards</HI> receiving Chri&s;t: for faith comes by hearing; and can no man do this without faith? Cannot the Eunuch reade a Chapter and ask help of an Interpreter without faith? Cannot men Fa&s;t and Pray, if not as <HI>Cornelius,</HI> yet as <HI>Ahab,</HI> without faith? Is there not a common Grace of the Spirit, drawing men <HI>towards Chri&s;t</HI> that were farre from him, which goes before the &s;pecial Grace (at lea&s;t &s;ometimes) whereby they are drawn <HI>to Chri&s;t?</HI> This that you maintain is not the doctrine of Mr. <HI>Tho. Hooker,</HI> Mr. <HI>Joh. Rogers,</HI> Mr. <HI>Bolton, Perkins,</HI> or any of our experimental practical Divines; no nor of any Prote&s;tants that I know; I am &s;ure not of the Synod of <HI>Dort;</HI> but of the Libertines and Antinomi&s;ts. To what end do you preach to any unbelie|vers? Do you per&s;wade to any means or duty towards the getting of faith? or do you not? If not, its like you Preach as you Di&s;pute; and then I doubt whe|ther you live at <HI>Bli&s;land:</HI> If you do, &s;ure that duty tends to faith, and may be per|formed before faith.</P>
<P N="3">3. I think you do more boldly a&s;&s;ert, then you can &s;olidly prove that [without faith a man can no more receive Chri&s;t, then a dead man walk] if you mean it of the Habit of faith, as, no doubt, you do. If you &s;hould mean it of the Act, it were a merry arguing: <HI>q. d.</HI> [We cannot Receive Chri&s;t without Receiving him: therefore Receiving him is a Power, and &s;o an In&s;trument] Actual faith, is a|ctual moral Receiving Chri&s;t. But I &s;uppo&s;e you mean it of the Habit, in con|formity to your former Di&s;pute; And then you &s;uppo&s;e that God cannot cau&s;e the Act of faith by his Spirit, before the Habit, and by the fir&s;t act cau&s;e a ha|bit (as <HI>Camero</HI> taught, and his followers do &s;till teach.) I &s;uppo&s;e if the que&s;tion were put but <HI>de facto,</HI> Whether God do ordinarily thus cau&s;e faith? it is pa&s;t Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s power to prove the Negative: Much more if the que&s;tion be <HI>de potentia divina,</HI> whether God <HI>can</HI> do it.</P>
<P N="4">4. Where you &s;ay [It gives life to the &s;oul in regard of all &s;piritual operations.] I Reply, 1. How indu&s;triou&s;ly doth Mr. <HI>Pemble</HI> prove that faith is not the Mother grace? not properly the root of all other graces, nor the fir&s;t degree of our &s;anctification and &s;piritual life, either in the Habit or the Act: <HI>Vindic. Grat. pag.</HI> 12, 13, 14. Yet Mr. <HI>K.</HI> that is &s;o zealous in defending him, &s;ticks not to gain|&s;ay it.</P>
<P N="2">2. Knowledge and Love may be &s;aid to give life to the &s;oul, if the exciting and a&s;&s;i&s;ting other graces, be giving life.</P>
<P N="3">3. It is in effecting or receiving a relation (<HI>Jus ad Chri&s;tum, impunitatem, &s;alu|tem</HI>) that we are enquiring after faiths In&s;trumentality. And you do turn the bu&s;ine&s;s to [giving Life to the &s;oul in regard of &s;piritual operations;] whereby you &s;eem to mean that faith is no otherwi&s;e an In&s;trument of receiving Chri&s;t, then as it is an In&s;trument of every other operation which it performeth; and as every other habit of grace (Love, Fear, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>) are in&s;truments of their acts.</P>
<P N="4">4. You play with the ambiguity of the term [Life.] You take it for the Union of Cau&s;es. You know how commonly it is u&s;ed for the <HI>Forma Viventis.</HI></P>
<P N="5"><PB N="133" REF="77">5. And &s;o faith is, as <HI>Pemble</HI> &s;aith, part of the &s;ouls new life, that is, new &s;piritual Rectitude; or as others, the whole <HI>&s;emen vel principium.</HI> But this is only a formall, and not an efficient quickening, or giving life. And if you &s;peak of faith exciting other graces: 1. That it doth by the Act, which you yet affirm not to be an In&s;trument. 2. So do all graces in their places help the re&s;t.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, If you did prove that Habits are fitly called the &s;ouls in&s;truments in producing the Acts, yet it is all nothing to our bu&s;ine&s;s. For we are enquiring how farre it is the In&s;trument of the effect, or of reception. And I &s;till &s;ay, that where the Act is no efficient cau&s;e, there the Habit by cau&s;ing the act, is no in|&s;trument of the effect. But in our Ju&s;tification, the act of faith is no efficient cau&s;e (Ju&s;tification is the immediate effect of God by the Act of grace now, and by his Sentence hereafter.) Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> And for reception, I &s;ay it hath no in&s;trument, but as the in&s;trument of the effect, may be called its in&s;trument; ex|cept you will &s;peak as a Mechanick, a Rhetorician, or <HI>Vulgariter,</HI> and not Lo|gically. And when Mr. <HI>K.</HI> gives me cogent Rea&s;ons again&s;t this, I hope I &s;hall regard them.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="65" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 65.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>K. VVHereas you adde la&s;tly, [The &s;harpne&s;s of the knife cannot be called the knives In&s;trument.] I mu&s;t without di&s;paragement to your confe&s;t acu|men in other things, tell you, that this is but a dull in&s;tance: for faith is not as the &s;harp|ne&s;s, but as the knife; and faith admits &s;ometime a greater &s;harpne&s;s, &s;ometimes a le&s;s, which qualifies it in its acting better or wor&s;e, more or le&s;s. And 2. The &s;harpne&s;s of the knife, may be called an in&s;trument in a larger &s;en&s;e, as fir&s;t qualities in the elements. The fire is &s;aid to act by its heat: the water by its cold; by the heat</HI> in|&s;trumentaliter, <HI>by its form</HI> principaliter. <HI>And thus 3. may the &s;oul be &s;aid to act by its faith in receiving Chri&s;t, without which it were as impo&s;&s;ible to receive benefit by Chri&s;t, as to return &s;ervice to him.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="65" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 65.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. I Acknowledge the in&s;tance of little u&s;e to the main Que&s;tion, be|cau&s;e it pertains but to the Act of faith, and not the following pa&s;&s;ion or effect.</P>
<P N="2">2. The &s;harpne&s;s of your An&s;wer, &s;erves but to cut your own fingers. That faith is as the knife, is feigned, and not proved. The knife is the &s;ub&s;tance, and the keenne&s;s is the accident or <HI>modus.</HI> Faith is not a &s;ub&s;tance, but a <HI>modus</HI> or accident of the &s;oul.</P>
<P N="3">3. In your large &s;en&s;e, you may &s;ay <HI>quid vis fer&egrave; de quovis,</HI> and &s;o I told you J did not contradict you.</P>
<P N="4">4. J am &s;o cen&s;orious as to imagine that you &s;peak more by rote, then on true knowledge in your Phy&s;icks, about &s;ite; but thats no matter.</P>
<P N="5">5. Who doubts but the &s;oul may, in the &s;en&s;e you mention, be &s;aid [to act by faith in receiving?] But once more di&s;tingui&s;h of receiving: which is 1. The act of con&s;enting to, or accepting of the offer of Chri&s;t and Life; which is <HI>Re|ceptio Ethica,</HI> metaphorically called Reception. 2. The true pa&s;&s;ive reception of Right to Chri&s;t and Life, which follows on the former. The fir&s;t is but the
<PB N="134" REF="78"> Condition, and not the Cau&s;e of the late, and is in Morality to the later, as in Naturals the <HI>Di&s;po&s;itio materiae</HI> is to the Reception of the form: but the efficient Cau&s;e of the later Reception is Gods Will, &s;ignified by his Law; and his Law &s;ignifying his Will, and Con&s;tituting the Dune&s;s. Now if you will &s;ay, that Faith in the Habit is the in&s;trumental efficient Cau&s;e of the fir&s;t Receiving Chri&s;t, that is no more then to &s;ay, the Habit is the in&s;trumental Cau&s;e of the Act, <HI>viz.</HI> its own A&s;&s;ent and Con&s;ent: as Love may be &s;aid of its Act. And whether this Speech be proper or improper, J leave it to your &s;elf, J will not med|dle with it. But for all Faith might be called the in&s;trument of Believing (&s;up|po&s;ing it may) and that Believing is tropically called Receiving, yet I deny that it can therefore be properly called the In&s;trument of con&s;equent, proper, Pa&s;&s;ive Reception of Right to Chri&s;t. (The Pa&s;&s;ion is &s;uch as Relations in their Re|ception are capable of.) Yet improperly, vulgarly, as an In&s;trument is not ta|ken for an Efficient Cau&s;e, I did profe&s;s and &s;till do, that I will contend with none that will call Faith the In&s;trument of Receiving (or any Con&s;ent of the Will, call it Love, or what you will&punc; as well as Belief in Chri&s;t, may &s;o be call'd an In&s;trument.) But that Faith is no true In&s;trumental Cau&s;e of forgiving our &s;ins, or Ju&s;tifying us, I &s;hall yet maintain till I &s;ee &s;tronger Rea&s;ons then M. <HI>K.</HI> hath here produced; and to that I am moved upon Rea&s;ons of great weight, which I have el&s;where manife&s;ted.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, Mr. <HI>K.</HI> &s;peaks too unlimitedly [of the Impo&s;&s;ibility of Receiving Bene|fit by Chri&s;t without Faith.] I dare &s;ay, that many a thou&s;and (if not all men) have received Benefit by Chri&s;t before faith. What &s;ay you by the Go&s;pel? What &s;ay you by Faith it &s;elf? J hope it is not the In&s;trument of our Receiving it &s;elf? Yea, and it is more then Mr. <HI>K.</HI> can prove, That God could not if he would, have given pardon it &s;elf to &s;ome without faith, upon Chri&s;ts meer Satisfaction. But what need I talk of this, to a man that thinks we have &s;o much of, or towards Remi&s;&s;ion, Ju&s;tification, Acceptation before faith, as he before di&s;p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ted for, <HI>i. e.</HI> to be tantamount Ju&s;tified? Though he takes them to be from Eternity, and &s;o no fruits of Chri&s;ts Death, yet he cannot de|ny, but as to us, we are as capable of Receiving &s;uch Benefits, without faith, from Chri&s;t, as without Chri&s;t.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="66" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 66.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. <HI>ANd I acknowledge I have done very little by this Dispute; only I had not the patience to &s;ee &s;o w<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rthly Divines &s;o unworthily handled, as if they had need to be taught a Logick le&s;&s;on by Mr.</HI> Baxter, <HI>who (as I have heard to the di&s;parage|ment of both Univer&s;ities) was &s;carce bred in either, but as much as I e&s;teem his excel|lent parts, and I doubt not &s;ingular piety, yet may I be bold to &s;ay, &s;omewhat more of the &V;niver&s;ity would have done him no harm&punc; And I conclude all with this Item to my &s;elf, though Mr.</HI> Baxter <HI>need not take notice of it,</HI></P>
<Q><L>&mdash;Netu Divinam Iliada tentes,</L>
<L>Sed longe &s;equere, &amp; Ve&s;tigia &s;emper adora.</L></Q>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="66" TYPE="section">
<PB N="135" REF="78">
<HEAD>&sect;. 66.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> 1. I Think your fir&s;t Conclu&s;ion (that you have done little by this Di|&s;pute) hath as cogent Evidence, as mo&s;t that you have maintained in the&s;e &s;ix leaves. But it had been more wi&s;dom to have fore&s;een your lo&s;s of time, and to have prevented it, rather then to confe&s;s it to your di&s;grace.</P>
<P N="2">2. Where you &s;ay, you [had not patience] I &s;ay, If you cannot forbear, there's no remedy: who can hold that which will away? The tongue is an unruly member. Perhaps your ca&s;e is as his <HI>Di&s;collimin.</HI> p. 54.</P>
<P N="3">3. I dare not excu&s;e, much le&s;&s;e ju&s;tifie my tongue or Pen, from too &s;harp and unmannerly &s;peeches of my betters: Even where I di&s;cern no fault, I do &s;u&s;pect &s;ome, as knowing &s;o much evil in that heart which is the fountain: And I hope all tho&s;e pious Brethren whom I &s;hall injure by my ra&s;hne&s;s, will heartily forgive it; which I earne&s;tly reque&s;t, and by Gods a&s;&s;i&s;tance, &s;hall do the like by others. But yet I mu&s;t needs &s;ay, that my Con&s;cience doth not accu&s;e me of [handling unworthily] D^r <HI>Twi&s;s</HI> or M^r <HI>P.</HI> of any men. For as I have exce&s;&s;ively honoured them, &s;o do I very highly honour them &s;till; and their mi&s;takes I had not men|tioned, but 1. That I had been by them en&s;nared in &s;ome of them, and thought my &s;elf bound to warn others of the danger. 2. The name of &s;uch worthy men may do more in propagating an errour, then a thou&s;and unlearned Antinomians can do, and therefore &s;hould their mi&s;takes be more diligently di&s;clo&s;ed. 3. It is pity Gods gifts and Saints &s;hould be a Defen&s;ative to errour, and a &s;nare to the Church. 4. I am confident the &s;ouls of the&s;e two Saints of God, if they know the&s;e things below, will give Mr. <HI>K.</HI> no thanks for his Vindication, nor be offen|ded with me for di&s;clo&s;ing their mi&s;takes, which they now do farre more dete&s;t then I. 5. It was no &s;uch Crime in the late Reverend A&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">embly to que&s;tion one of them for the&s;e mi&s;takes, or in Learned Bi&s;hop <HI>Downame</HI> to write a hundred times more then I again&s;t the other: And why then is it a Crime in me? 6. Re|verend Mr. <HI>Owen&punc;</HI> who approves your book, doth &s;ay farre more again&s;t Dr. <HI>Twi&s;s</HI> then ever I did, in his late excellent, learned <HI>Diatrib. de Ju&s;t. Vindicat.</HI> and yet I hear none accu&s;e him for unworthy handling him: Yea he ingeniou&s;ly confe&s;&s;eth his own former errour, and writes again&s;t it; and why then may not a man for Truths &s;ake be allowed to do by another, what he doth by him&s;elf? Had I been my &s;elf the Authour of Dr. <HI>Twi&s;&s;es</HI> Works (pardon the pre&s;umption of the &s;uppo|&s;ition) I &s;hould &s;ay ten times more again&s;t &s;everal things in them, then I ever yet did. 7. Mr. <HI>K.</HI> him&s;elf here confe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">eth the opinions that I mention of theirs to be erroneous: And is not that as unworthy handling them as mine? 8. I intreat the impartial Reader to peru&s;e my words them&s;elves, and then let him judge as he &s;eeth Cau&s;e. They are but the&s;e [A great Que&s;tion it is, Whether Re|mi&s;&s;ion and Ju&s;tification be Immanent or Tran&s;ient acts of God: The mi&s;take of this one point was it that led tho&s;e two mo&s;t excellent famous Divines Dr. <HI>Twi&s;s</HI> and Mr. <HI>Pemble</HI> to that errour and Pillar of Antinomiani&s;m, <HI>viz.</HI> Ju&s;tification from Eternity. For &s;aith D<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. <HI>Twi&s;s</HI> often, All Acts immanent in God are from Eter|nity: But Ju&s;tification and Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins are immanent Acts: Therefore.] Is this &s;uch unworthy handling? Mr. <HI>K.</HI> dur&s;t not once &s;ay that I fal&s;ly accu&s;ed them; or that it was not their errour. And could I give them a higher Elogy, then to call them [mo&s;t Excellent, Famous Divines.] I am confident the great|e&s;t Archbi&s;hops or Cardinals, yea the Pope him&s;elf would think &s;uch Titles no
<PB N="136" REF="79"> way injurious to them. The Lord General will be content with lower Titles then [mo&s;t Excellent and Famous] Do not &s;uch as Mr. <HI>K.</HI> go about to confirm the vile reproaches of the times, as if Mini&s;ters were the mo&s;t intollerably proud men on earth, when this is taken for unworthy handling! And when they that expect that their hearers &s;hould bear their &s;harpe&s;t and frequent reproofs, cannot bear &s;uch an honourable mention of their mi&s;takes?</P>
<P N="4">4. Whether there be one true word in Mr. K's particular accu&s;ation [as if they had need to be taught a Logick le&s;&s;on of Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI>] I am content my very ene|mies &s;hould Judge. Did I ever contend about any point of Logick with them? It was not, what an immanent Act is? But onely, Whether Ju&s;tification be an Immanent Act, and &s;o Eternal, that I enquired, and in which I oppo&s;ed them? I do therefore take it as my duty to Admoni&s;h my learned Brother of his great &s;in, who hath not once, twice, or thrice, but &s;o oft in &s;ix leaves &s;poken &s;uch pal|pable untruths in matter of fact, and made &s;o little Con&s;cience of the ninth Com|mandment.</P>
<P N="5">5. If in this Paragraph Mr. <HI>K.</HI> do di&s;cover the very end of his undertaking, not to be &s;o much the Vindicating of any truth of God, but of Worthy Divines, and Academicall Honour (of which I leave the Reader to Judge) then may we hence conjecture at the Rea&s;on of &s;everall Pa&s;&s;ages through the whole: for the Means may not be better then the End; and no wonder if they be &s;uited to it.</P>
<P N="6">6. As for all that follows concerning my [being &s;carce bred in either Univer&s;i|ty, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>] I have nothing to &s;ay. Did Mr. <HI>K.</HI> ever hear me contend for the Reputation of being Learned? He ea&s;ily carries the Cau&s;e here, having no con|tradiction.</P>
<P N="7">7. And where he &s;aith, that [&s;omewhat more of the Univer&s;ity would have done me no harm] I do not believe him: For though I have been as &s;en&s;ible of my want of &s;uch happy opportunities, and my defects thereupon, as ever Mr. <HI>K.</HI> was, at lea&s;t; yet I believe that all things work together for Good to them that love God; and that by that three-fold Cord (on my Friends, Body, and &s;crupulous Con&s;cience) by which God re&s;trained me from &s;uch advantages, and confined me to a more private cour&s;e of &s;tudies, he did al&s;o re&s;train me from &s;ome evil that I might el&s;e have run upon, or prevent &s;ome that he &s;aw would befall me: (and indeed he hath &s;atisfied me now of the particulars.)</P>
<P N="8">8. What men or other creatures tho&s;e were that Mr. <HI>K.</HI> did [hear boa&s;t of me to the di&s;paragement of both Univer&s;ities] J cannot conjecture. But this J will promi&s;e Mr. <HI>K.</HI> that how little &s;oever J have received from the Univer&s;ities, they &s;hall have my frequent and earne&s;t prayers to God, and my be&s;t endeavours with men, for their Pro&s;perity. The Lord purge them from Pride, Sen&s;uality, Man|plea&s;ing and Self-&s;eeking, and cau&s;e them humbly to &s;tudy Chri&s;t above all, and zealou&s;ly to lay out them&s;elves for his Glory, and with con&s;iderate, re&s;olved Self-denial and Unre&s;ervedne&s;s, wholly to re&s;ign them&s;elves to his &s;ervice, and make it their main bu&s;ine&s;s to win &s;ouls to that true felicity which they have fir&s;t ta&s;ted of them&s;elves; and then J &s;hould not &s;o much fear any policy or power of their Enemies.</P>
<P N="9">9. And for Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s concluding Poetical injunction; J heartily confe&s;s my ut|ter unworthine&s;s to be annumerated to the Amba&s;&s;adours of the Lord Ju&s;us, or ever to have been permitted to &s;peak in his Name; much more with any &s;uch &s;uc|ce&s;s and encouragement as he hath vouch&s;afed me: And the Lord forbid that ever
<PB N="137" REF="79"> I &s;hould be &s;o arrogant, as to equal my &s;elf with the Worthies of the Church, much le&s;&s;e to envy the honour of their preheminence. Yet in regard of the Chur|ches pre&s;ent nece&s;&s;ities, I dare not give over, for all my imperfections. Though I have ever been of a &s;pirit too ea&s;ily di&s;couraged, and have many a time been under <HI>Jonas</HI>'s temptation, and ready to &s;ay as <HI>Jeremy, I will &s;peak no more in his Name;</HI> yet God hath &s;o &s;uited his providences to my infirmities and nece&s;&s;ities, as not only to cure my backwardne&s;&s;e and de&s;pondency, but al&s;o to convince me of the plea&s;antne&s;s of his work. I am a&s;&s;ured that it was the Lord that &s;ent me into his Vineyard, and without him none &s;hall force me out. He that gave me fewer Talents then others, will expect but an an&s;werable improvement at my hands: but be they never &s;o &s;mall, I dare not hide them. He that calleth for two mites will accept them: He de&s;pi&s;eth not the day of &s;mall things. He &s;ome|time revealeth that to babes which he hideth from the wi&s;e and prudent: For the wi&s;dome of the world is fooli&s;hne&s;s with God, and the fooli&s;hne&s;s of God is wi|&s;er then men: and no fle&s;h &s;hall Glory in his &s;ight. How many learned men have lo&s;t the main end of their Learning, and engaged God &s;o farre again&s;t them, as to lay both them and their honour in the du&s;t, becau&s;e they would not devote it more faithfully to his &s;ervice! The Lord grant that I may &s;o u&s;e the &s;mall abili|ties that I have, that I be not condemned as an unprofitable and unfaithfull &s;ervant&punc; and then I do not fear being condemned for their &s;malne&s;s. There are many learneder men then Mr. <HI>K.</HI> in hell; and many more unlearned then I in heaven.</P>
<P>But &s;hould I deny my &s;elf to be Vile again&s;t the Accu&s;ations of Mr. <HI>K.</HI> when I daily confe&s;s my &s;elf Vile to God, I &s;hould but prove the hypocri&s;ie of my pray|ers. And therefore Di&s;pute for Reputation that will for me. When I am tem|pted to &s;uch a work by Accu&s;ers, or by my own heart, I de&s;ire God to &s;ave me from the Temptation. He that works principally for him&s;elf, mu&s;t be his own Pay|ma&s;ter.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="67" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 67.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Mr.</HI> K. <HI>THe &s;umme of all that hath been hitherto &s;aid in this Paragraph, is this, That to Ju&s;tification there is required a tran&s;tent act of Gods, or the working of Faith in our heart; which &s;hews, That albeit Gods Decree to Justifie us have much in it that looks &s;o well like Justification, that it may be called &s;o without Bla&s;phemy, yet that indeed Ju&s;tification is in time, not from Eternity: And it appears further thus: That Ju&s;tification being the Ab&s;olving us from our &s;ins, and the Accepting us as righteous, al|beit God the Father Decreed it, the Son Purcha&s;ed it, a Grant of it were made, and un|der Seal; yet till it be pleaded there is no Pardoning; as appears by comparing Gods par|don with that of Princes, which is not of Value till Pleaded, and not pleaded till after the Jury hath found the Offendor Guilty: &s;o this Ju&s;tification which begins at our Believing</HI> in foro Con&s;cientiae, <HI>a more private Se&s;&s;ions is again made more Publick in Heaven at our death, and this at Gods Bar before Angels and Saints decea&s;ed; and yet more publick before all the world at the General Judgement. This pardon was Purcha&s;ed, Re&s;olved, or I&s;&s;ued out, Sealed, Received, Pleaded at fir&s;t: but as new &s;ins are committed we plead it again, and &s;o may be &s;aid to be particularly Ju&s;tified from particular &s;ins,</HI> toties quoties, <HI>but alwayes by virtue of our General Pardon.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="67" TYPE="section">
<PB N="138" REF="80">
<HEAD>&sect;. 67.</HEAD>
<P><HI>R. B.</HI> VVE are now pa&s;t the End, and yet new to begin. If in this Recol|lection he had not &s;tumbled on a word or two, that come from the Core of his Errour, I &s;hould &s;carce have under&s;tood any of his minde about the Controver&s;ie in hand, &s;ave only Negatively, and that he is again&s;t Me. And yet it is not much that I can di&s;cern of it. Among all the Di&s;&s;erters of all Sects that ever I had to do with, that pretended to Learning, I have &s;eldome met with the like &s;lippery dealing, as in Mr. <HI>K.</HI> who pretending to make &s;ome notable di&s;covery of the Truth, did &s;o lo&s;e him&s;elf in the eager pur&s;ute of a contemptible Adver&s;ary, that he &s;eems to have quite forgot his undertaking, and leave his errand behinde him. But to deal truly, it is my opinion, that though the man were drawn to en|gage him&s;elf, yet when he had emptied his bilious &s;tomack, he found his work done, and therefore was willing to drop a&s;leep when he &s;hould have performed his Promi&s;e. He doth over and over again promi&s;e us to open to us <HI>what is the Tran|&s;ient Ju&s;tifying Act,</HI> yea, <HI>pag.</HI> 139. to <HI>&s;peak Punctually to it;</HI> and when all's done, the bu&s;ine&s;s is &s;o farre undone, that for my part, I cannot certainly tell yet whe|ther he once name it, or what his opinion about it is. <HI>Pag.</HI> 141. He &s;aith [by Giving us &s;aith, he Ju&s;tifies us, as &s;hall be &s;hewed anon, he giving us that which is our In&s;trument, whereby we receive the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t.] That [anon] is not yet come; for I finde no fuller di&s;covery of his minde, but only <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> little glance in this Recollection, wherewith he doth conclude. In tho&s;e former words he &s;eems to make the Immediate Ju&s;tifying act to be the Giving of Faith; and yet contradicts it in the next words; for that Faith he makes to be Given, that it may be our In&s;trument of Receiving. Now</P>
<P N="1">1. We are enquiring after Gods act, and not mans In&s;trument.</P>
<P N="2">2. We are enquiring after the Immediate effecting Act, and not a Receiving, which is no effecting.</P>
<P>Let us &s;ee whether the&s;e words under con&s;ideration will any better di&s;cover his &s;en&s;e.</P>
<P N="1">1. He &s;aith [that to Ju&s;tification there is required a Tran&s;ient Act of Gods; or the working of faith in our heart] This is all the tran&s;ient Act I can learn he intends from fir&s;t to la&s;t. But though before he &s;aid [by Giving us faith, he Ju&s;tifies us] yet here he thought it &s;afer to &s;peak more ambiguou&s;ly, and onely &s;aith, that [this is required to Ju&s;tification.] But there are many things requi|red to it, be&s;ides that Act which doth immediately Effect it: Antecedents, Con|ditions, the Cau&s;es of tho&s;e Conditions, are all Required to it; when yet none of them is <HI>the</HI> ju&s;tifying Act. But if indeed he do mean that <HI>Fidem dare,</HI> is <HI>Ju|&s;tificare,</HI> I will &s;peak to that anon. Next he &s;aith, that [Gods Decree to ju&s;ti|fie, looks well like Ju&s;tification] but that is not it. Next he &s;aith, that [Ju|&s;tification is the Ab&s;olving us from our &s;ins, and Accepting us as Righteous] that he may come to &s;hew us what is not, and what is, the Ab&s;olving and Accepting Act. And fir&s;t again he excludes <HI>Decreeing</HI> from being the Act enquired after: then he excludes Chri&s;ts Purcha&s;e; then he excludes the Grant made and &s;ealed: then he &s;aith [Till it be pleaded there is no pardoning, as appears by comparing Gods pardon with that of Princes.] Perhaps then he means that [Pleading] is Pardoning, or the ju&s;tifying Act. No, not &s;o neither: For he only &s;aith, that till it be Pleaded, there is no Pardoning] which plainly expre&s;&s;eth, That Plead|ing
<PB N="139" REF="80"> is but a prerequi&s;ite Condition, the want whereof &s;u&s;pendeth the act of Par|don, but is not the Pardoning act it &s;elf. In the Conclu&s;ion he gives us a little more light to &s;ee part of his meaning, where he &s;aith [&s;o this Ju&s;tification which begins at our Believing <HI>in foro Con&s;cientiae,</HI> a more private Se&s;&s;ions, is again made more publick in Heaven at our death, and this at Gods Bar before Angels, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>] Here he tels us more then yet I could gather from him, <HI>in quo foro ju&s;tificamur fide,</HI> that it is but <HI>in foro Con&s;cientiae,</HI> a more private Se&s;&s;ions, &s;o that we are left to &s;earch for the ju&s;tifying Act; which though he vouch&s;afe not expre&s;ly to mention, yet we may po&s;&s;ibly conjecture at by this la&s;t pa&s;&s;age. If the Reader would &s;ee the whole my&s;tery which is thus darkly lapt up, as being &s;omewhat afraid of the light, as far as I can gather, it is this.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>K.</HI> being of the Antinomian faith, That Remi&s;&s;ion and Ju&s;tification are Immanent Acts, and from Eternity (and con&s;equently not purcha&s;ed by Chri&s;ts bloud) and that Ju&s;tification by faith, which the Scripture &s;peaks of, is only Ju|&s;tification <HI>in foro Con&s;cientiae,</HI> or the apprehen&s;ion of the former; he thought, in the&s;e times, when Antinomiani&s;m hath an ill &s;avour with the be&s;t, that it is the wi&s;e&s;t way to appropriate the name of Remi&s;&s;ion and Ju&s;tification by faith (in this life) to this Ju&s;tification <HI>in foro Con&s;cientiae,</HI> and to give to the Immanent E|ternal Act, the de&s;cription without the name. And therefore he thought it fitte&s;t to &s;ay, that [Gods decreeing to Remit our &s;ins, carries in it a Remi&s;&s;ion of them tantamount; for who &s;hall charge them on us, where God decrees to Re|mit them?] <HI>Pag.</HI> 138. That [Gods Decree to pa&s;&s;e the tran&s;ient Act of ju&s;ti|fying, carries in it as much as concerns Gods Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins, and Acceptance of us as Righteous.] But the change that is made in time by the tran&s;ient Act, is in our Feeling or Knowledge, and therefore he &s;aith, that when we &s;ay [Now a man is ju&s;tified in Gods &s;ight] it [&s;ignifies only a te&s;timony given by God, whereby he makes <HI>us</HI> know that we are ju&s;tified before God, or in his &s;ight] and that [in God it &s;ignifies, A making us to &s;ee: and we are &s;aid to be ju&s;tified in his &s;ight, when he makes it, as it were evident to our &s;ight, that we are ju&s;tified] <HI>p.</HI> 138. (Here before he was aware, he gives it the name of ju&s;tification before we &s;ee it.) Now being Re&s;olved to appropriate the name of Remi&s;&s;ion and Iu&s;tifi|cation (in this life) to that which is <HI>in foro Con&s;cientiae,</HI> he is hard put to it, to deliver his meaning of the tran&s;ient ju&s;tifying Act, without opening the &s;hame of his opinion. And therefore &s;ometimes he &s;aith, It is the Giving of &s;aith to be our In&s;trument: Sometime that this faith is nece&s;&s;ary to it: but concludes, that it is <HI>in foro Con&s;cientiae,</HI> a private Se&s;&s;ions, that we are ju&s;tified before death: So that the Summe is this: That Iu&s;tification, and Remi&s;&s;ion, and Acceptation do con&s;i&s;t in our Con&s;cience's apprehen&s;ion or feeling of that which God did from Eternity (which mu&s;t not be called Remi&s;&s;ion, but Tantamount Remi&s;&s;ion:) and becau&s;e Con&s;cience cannot know or feel this, but by Believing, and becau&s;e we cannot Believe till God give us the Grace of faith, therefore God ju&s;tifies or pardons us by Giving us that Grace: that is, We by Believing or being Con&s;cious of our Eter|nal Acceptance, do immediately ju&s;tifie and forgive our &s;elves; but mediately God forgiveth and ju&s;tifieth us by Ca<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;ing us to Believe, and Cau&s;ing our Con|&s;ciences to ju&s;tifie us immediately.</P>
<P>I will not &s;ay, that I am certain I have hit of Mr. <HI>K</HI>'s minde in this explication: for who can be certain in &s;uch a mi&s;t? And therefore I leave every Reader that thinks I mi&s;take it, to gather it b<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tter, if he can.</P>
<P>What ever it is, I am &s;ure he oft contradicts him&s;elf. He that here tels us it is <HI>in
<PB N="140" REF="81"> foro Con&s;cientiae,</HI> and talkt before of evidencing it to our &s;elves, doth &s;ay <HI>Pag.</HI> 139. l. <HI>ult.</HI> [Where ever there is a Moral, <HI>i. e.</HI> a Legal change, there is a tran&s;ient act, and this being in ju&s;tification, a tran&s;ient act is nece&s;&s;arily required to this change] Now a meer Legal change is <HI>de jure,</HI> and not in the feeling of Con&s;cience&punc; and it is <HI>in foro nullo actualiter, &s;ed virtualiter in foro divino,</HI> it being <HI>actus illius Legis qu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> e&s;t Norma Judi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ii:</HI> and therefore not <HI>in foro Con&s;cientiae, vel aliqu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> privato.</HI> And if it be confe&s;t to be a Moral, <HI>i. e.</HI> a Legal change, what man &s;ees not that it mu&s;t be a change <HI>per Legem?</HI> i. e. <HI>novam, remedia<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tem,</HI> or <HI>per actum moralem?</HI> Nay, mark how in the very words of this Conclu&s;ion, he yields the Cau&s;e and doth not &s;ee it. He confe&s;&s;eth that we are pardoned as Offendors are by a Prince's pardon, which is not of Value till pleaded. Now let any man of under&s;tanding judge, whether the Princes Pardon Granted and Sealed, be not the immediate, efficient Cau&s;e of this Delinquents ab&s;olution or pa&s;&s;ive pardon, when he doth plead it: And whe|ther it be not fir&s;t a <HI>Jus impunitatis</HI> that is hereby Given him, which (whatever is here &s;aid) is of Value upon the Accepting, before the pleading, though the plea|ding is al&s;o nece&s;&s;ary to &s;top judgement, or prevent Execution, and &s;o to have the full benefit. And what though the Pardon Granted and Sealed be not Effectual till Accepted or Pleaded? Doth it follow, that it is not the immediate Cau&s;e af|terwards? Let it not &s;eem unmannerly if I &s;peak my thoughts; that all this pro|ceeds from this Learned mans great mi&s;take or incon&s;ideratene&s;s of the Nature of Laws and their Actions, and of the nature and u&s;e of Conditions, who&s;e <HI>non</HI>-per|formance doth &s;u&s;pend the action of the Law or Grant, (becau&s;e the Will of the Legi&s;lator or Donor was, that it &s;hould &s;o be) but the performance doth not cau&s;e its action, much le&s;s immediatly cau&s;e the Effect; unle&s;s there be &s;omething in it that may work as a procatarcktick efficient Cau&s;e, by way of Merit, or the like, over and above its meer Office of a Condition. If a man by his Te&s;tament leave his Son a thou&s;and pound <HI>per annum</HI> on Condition that he do voluntaily Regi&s;ter his Thankful Acceptance of it: It is not the performance of this Condition that doth at all cau&s;ally con&s;titute the <HI>Jus ad rem legatam,</HI> or <HI>conferre Debitum,</HI> or <HI>Donare&punc;</HI> though the <HI>non</HI>-performance may &s;u&s;pend the Collation of Right: but it is the Te|&s;tament that doth immediately con&s;titute this Right, when the &s;u&s;pen&s;ion is remo|ved, which before it did not, becau&s;e the Te&s;tator would not have it &s;o. <HI>Grotius in Ca&s;s and. art. 4. p. 280. Promi&s;&s;i enim ea V<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> ut Conditionem implenti Jus conferat. Vid. de Jur&punc; Belli. l. 1. c. 1. &sect;. 4. &amp; l. 1. c. 11. &sect;. 1, &amp;c.</HI> If then it were true, as M. <HI>K.</HI> here affirm|eth, that it is at this private Se&s;&s;ion<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> <HI>in foro Con&s;cientiae,</HI> that we are fir&s;t ju&s;tified on our Believing, then the immediate ju&s;tifying Act (which Mr. <HI>K.</HI> hath talked &s;o oft of) can be no other then either our own Apprehen&s;ion, or belief that we are Pardoned and Righteous, or &s;ome &s;uch like Apprehen&s;ion or Conclu&s;ion of our own hearts. For if it be <HI>in foro Con&s;cientiae,</HI> it mu&s;t be By Con&s;cience as the Agent, that is, By the under&s;tandings Concluding us to be what we are&punc; But this both &s;uppo&s;eth us to be Pardoned and Righteous before (for the Being of a thing go|eth before the true Knowledge that i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> is in Being: None can be truly Con&s;cious of a Righteou&s;ne&s;s or Pardon which he hath no<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">:) and al&s;o it makes us to pardon and ju&s;tifie our &s;elves; and the tran&s;ient ju&s;tifying Act of God, &s;o long enquired after, &s;hould be only Gods cooperating with us in our Believing, or Cau&s;ing us to Believe. Yea rather, the Act of ju&s;tifying faith (which is the Acceptance of an offered Chri&s;t and Life, 1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 5. 11&punc; 12.) goes before this Act now mention|ed, and this is but A&s;&s;urance or a Con&s;ciou&s;ne&s;s of the State that by Believing we are in. Let any man that is willing to know the truth, but examine every Text
<PB N="141" REF="81"> of Scripture that &s;peak of Ju&s;tification by faith, and he may ea&s;ily &s;ee that they do not (no not one of them) &s;peak of Ju&s;tification in <HI>foro Con&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ienciae,</HI> or of any con|&s;ciou&s;ne&s;s of our Righteou&s;ne&s;s, but of Ju&s;tification before God.</P>
<P>And that Gods giving faith is not the immediate ju&s;tifying act, appears 1. From the very name. [To give faith] is one thing, and [to ju&s;tifie] i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> another. 2. From the real difference. Faith is given by a Phy&s;ical act imme|diatly: Righteou&s;ne&s;s, immediatly by a Legal or Moral act. Faith is a real Quality (in the habit) or Act: Righteou&s;ne&s;s is a Relation, and is immediatly by a meer Re&s;ultancy. Nay the very matter or meritorious cau&s;e of the Righte|ou&s;ne&s;s now in que&s;tion, is not faith, but Chri&s;ts &s;atisfaction and merits. The <HI>terminus</HI> therefore of the ju&s;tifying act (J &s;peak now of our con&s;titutive&punc; Ju&s;tifica|tion) is Righteou&s;ne&s;s, a Relation: but the <HI>terminus</HI> of Gods act in giving Faith, is th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Faith &s;o given. The Object al&s;o of the ju&s;tifying act, and the Subject of Ju&s;tification, is <HI>credens,</HI> a man already Believing: but the object of that act which giveth faith, is an Unbeliever. 3. Is not this flat Popery? to make Ju&s;tificati|on to lye in a real change, and not a relative? and &s;o to make it the &s;ame with Vocation, Conver&s;ion, Regeneration, or Sanctification? Whereas the holy Gho&s;t &s;aith, [<HI>Whom he called them he ju&s;tified,</HI> Rom. 8. 30.] For to give faith is Vocation (as tho&s;e Divines &s;ay, that make faith to go before other graces in habit and act:) or it is Vocation, Regeneration and Sanctification, as Mr. <HI>Pemble</HI> thinks, who &s;uppo&s;eth all infu&s;ed <HI>in uno &s;emine.</HI> So that if <HI>Fidem dare,</HI> and <HI>Ju&s;tificare</HI> be all one, then to Ju&s;tifie and to Call or Sanctifie is all one.</P>
<P>I had once thought to have heaped up divers Arguments here in the conclu&s;ion on the&s;e two la&s;t points. 1. To prove that our fir&s;t Ju&s;tification by faith, which Scripture &s;peaks of, is not <HI>in foro con&s;cienciae.</HI> 2. To prove that [to give faith] is not the proper or immediate ju&s;tifying act of God. But I &s;hall forbear 1. Be|cau&s;e Mr. <HI>K.</HI> gives me &s;o little invitation to it, &s;eeing he gives but a few dark hints of his own minde. 2. In that I finde upon review that almo&s;t all this paper is unavoidably taken up with a meer defence of my words again&s;t his injury, and he hath not given me occa&s;ion for many further profitable explications or di&s;putes: and therefore I will re&s;erve the&s;e for a fitter place. 3. Becau&s;e I have larglier al|ready Argued again&s;t both the&s;e in private an&s;wers to the Animadver&s;ions of learned Friends: and though tho&s;e are not for publique view, yet I have a back|wardne&s;s to the doing of one thing &s;o oft. 4. Becau&s;e this little that I have here &s;aid, &s;eems enough, and proportionable to his brevity which doth occa&s;ion it.</P>
<P>This one thing &s;eems nece&s;&s;ary, in the Conclu&s;ion, that I adde a few Rea&s;ons to prove that it is in Law-&s;en&s;e that we are fir&s;t ju&s;tified by faith, and &s;o that the Moral Act of the Law is the immediate ju&s;tifying act (and con&s;equently the enacting of that Law of grace, or granting that Deed of gift, is the next foregoing efficient act.) There are Rea&s;ons enough in my Aphori&s;mes, but Mr. <HI>K.</HI> thought it ea&s;ie&s;t to take no notice of them.</P>
<P>Arg. 1. <HI>A termino.</HI></P>
<P>The thing that is given by Remi&s;&s;ion is <HI>Jus ad Impunitat<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m:</HI> But it is only by Laws, Contracts, Deeds of gift, or the like Moral acts, that Right is immediatly conveyed: Therefore it is by the&s;e immediatly that we are forgiven: (and &s;o ju|&s;tified <HI>Con&s;titutiv&egrave;.</HI>)</P>
<P>I &s;uppo&s;e it will not be denied that Remi&s;&s;ion is a Giving? <HI>Qui condonat, Donat.</HI> So Lawyers generally &s;ay of Remitting a wrong, and it will hold in ca&s;e of crimes, e&s;pecially in our ca&s;e, again&s;t God. <HI>Frago&s;us de Regimine Reipub. Chri&s;t. part.</HI> 7.
<PB N="142" REF="82"> <HI>li. 6. Di&s;p. 17. n. 95. p.</HI> 844. &s;aith, <HI>Remittere injuriam e&s;t Donare, &amp; Donare e&s;t jactare &s;uum.</HI></P>
<P>Arg. 2. <HI>A malo remoto, contrario, &amp; Termino a quo.</HI></P>
<P>The Di&s;&s;olution of a Legal obligation, mu&s;t be by a Moral act of the Rector, of the &s;ame kinde with the obliging act. But Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;in is a Di&s;&s;olution of &s;uch an Obligation. Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>The <HI>major</HI> is proved by that common maxime, <HI>Eodem modo di&s;&s;olvitur obligatio, quo contrahitur.</HI> The <HI>minor</HI> is proved by the true definition of Pardon: Which is in criminals, The Act of a Rector di&s;&s;olving an Obligation to puni&s;hment. <HI>Remi&s;&s;io e&s;t proxim&egrave; Reatus Remi&s;&s;io; remotius Penae: Reatus e&s;t Obligatio ad P<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nam.</HI></P>
<P>Arg. 3. <HI>Ab officio Legis.</HI></P>
<P>If it be the u&s;e of the Law to be <HI>Norma Judicii,</HI> then he that is ju&s;tified <HI>per &s;ententiam Judicis,</HI> mu&s;t be fir&s;t ju&s;tified in Law: But the Antecedent is true: Therefore, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>When I &s;ay [Ju&s;tified in Law] I do not mean [by the Law] &s;trictly taken as mo&s;t do, for one only <HI>Species</HI> of Law: But I mean [by Law] in general, as it is truly defined to be <HI>Constitutiva Determinatio Rectoris de Debito. Vel &s;ignum Voluntatis Rectoris Debitum Con&s;tituens.</HI> For many Lawyers do call only written and &s;tanding Laws, by the name of Laws, and do exclude verball precepts of a Rector: In this limited &s;en&s;e, as it is taken for [Law by an Excellency] I do not now u&s;e it.</P>
<P>Arg. 4. <HI>A natura Sententiae.</HI></P>
<P>Declarative &s;entential Ju&s;tification or Pardon, pre&s;uppo&s;eth Ju&s;tification Con&s;titutive. Therefore Ju&s;tification Con&s;titutive goes before &s;entential Ju&s;ti|fication.</P>
<P>Here I &s;uppo&s;e 1. That Con&s;titutive is <HI>per Legem,</HI> and not <HI>per Sententiam,</HI> which is pa&s;t di&s;pute. 2. That it is by faith (as the condition) that we are ju&s;tified <HI>Con&s;titutiv&egrave;,</HI> it being only Believers that are Morally qualified to be fit &s;ubjects for this Ju&s;tification, and whom alone the new Law pronounceth Righ|teous, and to whom alone it effectually giveth Chri&s;t and Life. The Antecedent is plain, in that the Judge mu&s;t &s;entence a man to be as he is, and according to his Cau&s;e. A man mu&s;t be ju&s;t, before he ju&s;tly be pronounced&punc; Ju&s;t. He that condemneth the Righteous, and he that ju&s;tifieth the wicked, they both are abo|mination to the Lord, <HI>Prov. 17. 15. He that &s;aith to the wicked, Thou art Righteous, him &s;hall Nations cur&s;e, people &s;hall abhorre him&punc;</HI> Prov. 24. 24. So that whether the &s;entence be in con&s;cience or Heaven, it mu&s;t pre&s;uppo&s;e Ju&s;tification Con|&s;titutive.</P>
<P>Arg. 5. <HI>A natura fidei Ju&s;tificantis.</HI></P>
<P>If the nature of that act of faith which ju&s;tifieth, be only &s;uch as may be the condition of the Laws con&s;titutive Ju&s;tification, and not &s;uch as may be the In&s;trument of &s;entencing us Ju&s;t, then Ju&s;tification by faith (which Scripture mentioneth &s;o oft) is Ju&s;tification in Law &s;en&s;e, and not Sentential: But the Antecedent is true; as is proved from the Act, which I have el&s;ewhere pro|ved to be [the Accepting of an offered Chri&s;t and Life] (including A&s;&s;ent) and not the Antinomian, &s;pecial Belief that we are pardoned, or a per&s;wa|&s;ion of Gods &s;pecial Love to us, or a con&s;ciou&s;ne&s;s of our Righteou&s;ne&s;s, or A&s;&s;urance of it, which are &s;aid to ju&s;tifie &s;ententially <HI>in foro Con&s;cientiae.</HI></P>
<P>Arg. 6. <HI>A communi con&s;en&s;u, &amp; u&s;u loquendi.</HI></P>
<P>It is the common judgement of men to think, and common cu&s;tom to &s;ay,
<PB N="143" REF="82"> that [A King pardoneth by his written, or verbal Pardon, as his In&s;trument] and to di&s;tingui&s;h [<HI>Ju&s;tificationem Legis] a Ju&s;tificatione Judicis,</HI> the former be|ing pre&s;uppo&s;ed: therefore we mu&s;t do &s;o here, unle&s;s any &s;pecial rea&s;on can be brought again&s;t it: For Gods Law hath the common nature of a Law, and his Judgement the common nature of judgement.</P>
<P>To prove the Antecedent I need but to appeal to the common u&s;e of men ac|quainted with Legal and Judicial affairs. Yea even Mr. <HI>K.</HI> him&s;elf cannot for|bear acknowledging it: Yea be&s;ides the forementioned acknowledgements, he is &s;trangely guided to conclude with it, as the very la&s;t word of his Digre&s;&s;ion, a|gain&s;t me [We may be &s;aid to be particularly ju&s;tified from particular &s;ins <HI>toties quoties,</HI> but alwaies by vertue of our general pardon.] This general pardon is that which God i&s;&s;ued out and &s;ealed as he &s;aith, which becoming effectual when re|ceived&punc; and pleaded, doth by its virtue ju&s;tifie us from particular &s;ins: that is, by its moral or civil action.</P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 7. When the Scripture &s;o oft denieth Ju&s;tification by the Law, it plainly implieth that there is &s;uch a thing <HI>in rerum natura,</HI> as Ju&s;tification by a Law, and that it is no improper unfit &s;peech: For el&s;e God would not u&s;e it, <HI>Gal.</HI> 5. 4. &amp; 3. 11. Yea it oppo&s;eth Ju&s;tification by grace in Chri&s;t, to Ju&s;tification by the Law, <HI>Act. 13. 39. By him all that believe are ju&s;tified from all things from which they could not be ju&s;tified by the Law of Mo&s;es:</HI> Where note the oppo&s;ition that [by Chri&s;t and Grace] is oppo&s;ed to [by works] and &s;o [by the Law of Chri&s;t and Grace] is oppo&s;ed to [by the Law of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> and Works.] That therefore is af|firmed of the Law of Grace, which is denied of the Law of Works: <HI>viz.</HI> to ju&s;ti|fie. And the rea&s;on why the Law of Works could not ju&s;tifie, was for that it was weak through the fle&s;h, and not that it was an action or effect di&s;agreeable to the nature of a Law.</P>
<P>Many other actions of Law to the &s;ame purpo&s;e, I recited out of &s;everal Scriptures, in my Aphori&s;mes, <HI>pag.</HI> 178, 179. which I will not trouble the Reader to repeat.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="68" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. 68.</HEAD>
<P>ANd thus I have done that ungratefull work which Mr. <HI>K.</HI> was plea&s;ed by Digre&s;&s;ing to put me upon: which I confe&s;s appears not lovely to me on the review. For I finde though I have ea&s;ily born the charges of this Learned man, yet it is no very u&s;efull work to the Reader that he hath here called me to; and I thought it not fit to go beyond my call. In the fir&s;t part I have little to do, but to obtrude his confidence, and to &s;hew that he meerly feigned me his adver|&s;ary, forgetting that of <HI>Seneca, Victoriae &s;ine adver&s;ario brevis e&s;t laus:</HI> In the re&s;t I have not much to do, but to open the vanity and fallacy of many words, and to &s;hew what a windy Triumph it is which followeth &s;uch a windy Oppo&s;ition, and what his Reader oweth him, who doth <HI>importare verba &amp; &s;onum pro mercibus:</HI> And what can the Reader gain al&s;o by &s;uch a di&s;covery. I finde al&s;o, that though I re&s;olved to forbear all har&s;h language when I begun, that I have not &s;atisfied my &s;elf in the performance. For when I came to his mo&s;t injurious words, I could not tell how to an&s;wer them but by &s;hewing plainly what they are, and calling a Spade, a Spade; which cannot be done in &s;mooth and plea&s;ing words; and I finde that I have u&s;ed more Ironies then I dare approve of. My re&s;olution there|fore is, to &s;tifle this work till I have a call to publi&s;h it, and then to commit it to
<PB N="144" REF="83"> &s;ome moderate hand, to correct all that &s;hall &s;eem too unmannerly. For though I think I have &s;poken nothing but what Mr. <HI>K.</HI> ought to hear, yet I doubt whe|ther it be not more then was fit for me to &s;peak. It is my purpo&s;e therefore to deal with him no more, le&s;t I be drawn again to the &s;ame inconvenience. For I finde I cannot Reply to &s;uch a man in &s;uch termes as I do to the Moderate and Candide. Till his breath be &s;weeter or &s;ounder I think it &s;afe&s;t to &s;tand further from him. When he di&s;gorgeth his &s;tomack on me, I have not the skill of &s;ha|king it off &s;o mannerly, and clean&s;ing my &s;elf without his di&s;grace, as I could wi&s;h I had. And if a man &s;tirre them not very tenderly, <HI>Plus faetent &s;tercora mota.</HI> I finde al&s;o that it is a very hard thing again&s;t the guilty to &s;peak both truly and plea&s;ingly: For <HI>nemini blanditur Veritas:</HI> and I have a natural inclination to &s;peak nakedly and plainly; which being &s;econded with &s;ome degree of opinion, that <HI>qui loquitur plan&egrave;, loquitur &s;an&egrave;,</HI> may quickly occa&s;ion me to &s;tep too farre. But the principal cau&s;e is, that I am truly aweary of the Warres of Divines: Many an opportunity and importunity have I put by, as finding here al&s;o, that <HI>Impendia belli &s;unt praemiis majora:</HI> and e&s;pecially in this civil uncivil Warre of Brethren, the gainer u&s;ually lo&s;eth: unle&s;s men could be brought to deal more with the <HI>Matter,</HI> and le&s;s with <HI>Words</HI> and <HI>Men.</HI> Contentions are both the Daughter and the Mo|ther of Pride. They are (as &s;oot) the fuel of that flame that cau&s;ed them. If the contender be overcome, he glorieth not as a Chri&s;tian in the Victory of Truth, but repineth as a man at his own overthrow; and <HI>pro plumeis noxis <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">lumbas iras gerit:</HI> If he &s;eem to conquer <HI>&s;upercilia erigit,</HI> and it doth puff him up, and &s;o in|crea&s;e his vice, and ha&s;ten his ruine: for</P>
<P><HI>Vindicat elatos ju&s;ta ruina gradus.</HI></P>
<P>However it &s;ets men u&s;ually on two eager a &s;tudying for their own Reputation; which is the way that god re&s;olveth &s;hall ruine it: For he that will be great mu&s;t be the &s;ervant of all, and he that will be wi&s;e mu&s;t become a fool, and he that will &s;ave his honour mu&s;t lo&s;e it: <HI>qui propagat nomen, perdit <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">omen.</HI> My &s;oul ta|&s;teth an admirable &s;weetne&s;s in Peace: The Churches Peace, the Concord of Brethren is my daily &s;tudy, prayer and endeavour; which O that I were able any right way to promote! What I do that way, I do with plea&s;ure: my greate&s;t zeal doth carry me to it. But what I do in way of Controver&s;ie, yea even when nece&s;&s;itated, &s;o that I dare not forbear, lea&s;t I &s;hould betray or wrong the Truth, yet is it grievous and ungratefull to me: I have little plea&s;ure in it. I am re&s;ol|ved therefore to draw back from this work, as much as I finde con&s;i&s;tent with my Fidelity to the Truth of Chri&s;t; and to do nothing in it till I am &s;atisfied of a Call that mu&s;t not be re&s;i&s;ted. And when I follow God, I may &s;afely commit to him my Way and Labours: for I have found that he draweth forth nothing, which he knows not how to u&s;e for good. And the more any Brother is per&s;waded that I tran&s;gre&s;s my bounds in writing too &s;harply, I intreat him the more to pray for the pardon of my fault, and the more watchfully to &s;hun the like him&s;elf; and to joyn with me, and all the Churches friends, in daily and importunate reque&s;ts to God, that he would guide our feet into the way of Truth and Peace; even of that Truth, which lying between extreams, is the only way to &s;tedfa&s;t Peace; and of that Peace, which is the Means and End of Truth. <HI>Amen.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<CLOSER><DATELINE><HI>Kedermin&s;ter,</HI> <DATE>Augu&s;t 1^o 1653^o.</DATE></DATELINE></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="postscript">
<PB REF="83">
<HEAD>POSTSCRIPT.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Chri&s;tian Reader,</HI> I Have been willing to hope that my work of this kinde, and with this kinde of men, was almo&s;t at an end, and that God would in mercy grant me &s;ome little vacancy for more profitable la|bors (of practicall Theology) which I have long affected, and earne&s;tly de&s;ired an opportunity to perform: But the unce&s;&s;ant a&s;&s;aults of con|tentious men do make me begin to lay a&s;ide &s;uch hopes; The enemy of truth is too &s;ubtle for me; It's like he doth conjecture at the &s;hortne&s;s of my time, and therefore contriveth to force me upon other works till my gla&s;&s;e is run. I have long fore&s;een his plot, and yet I am not able to di&s;appoint him: To quiet the &s;pirits of the contentious is be|yond my power; To bear in &s;ilence their Reproaches of my &s;elf, and to &s;pend but little time or none in vindicating of any Intere&s;t of mine own, this I have purpo&s;ed and promi&s;ed to my Brethren. But when I &s;ee apparently that it is an intere&s;t higher then mine that is a&s;&s;aulted, and that Gods Truth and the &s;ouls of men do command my endea|vours for their defence, I have no power to forbear. Since the Print|ing of this Book, there is come to my hands a &s;econd Volume of M^r <HI>G. Kendals</HI> again&s;t M^r <HI>John Goodwin</HI> on the point of per&s;everance; wherein he hath a&s;&s;aulted my <HI>Directions for Peace of Con&s;cience</HI> in a large Preface; and my Book of <HI>Re&s;t,</HI> in a Digre&s;&s;ion: Had he fallen on my <HI>Aphori&s;mes</HI> again, I think I &s;hould have &s;ilently yeelded them up as a &s;acrifice to his &s;corn; But tho&s;e other Practicall Writings, I &s;up|po&s;e it my duty ju&s;tly to defend. 1. Becau&s;e I know it is the Serpents malicious de&s;ign to make my Labours unprofitable to the Church. And &s;eeing God in great mercy hath &s;atisfied me by experience, that how weak &s;oever, they have been hitherto &s;ucce&s;sfull, I take it for no proud over valuing them, but for a judgement upon experience, to conclude that it will be &s;ome wrong to the Church of God and &s;ouls of men if I &s;ilently give way to this &s;erpentine de&s;ign. 2. I have heard &s;uch Jealou&s;ies and terrible accu&s;ations &s;pread abroad by this &s;ort of Divines again&s;t my Writings, and e&s;pecially my <HI>Directions for Peace,</HI> as cau&s;ed me much to admire what the cau&s;e of the offence &s;hould be. Never could I hear but one particular accu&s;ation of it, which is the &s;hamele&s;&s;e fal&s;hood, that I was again&s;t the doctrine of the <HI>Saints Per|&s;everance;</HI> to which I annexed an Apology to the &s;econd Edition. But I found it was further buz'd into the heads of the people, that there were many other dangerous errors in it; But all was in generals, and I could never learn any of the particulars till now: Nay the people that were deterred from reading it, knew none of the particulars them|&s;elves, but took on tru&s;t from jealous fame that &s;uch there were. And I learned, that there is among &s;ome Brethren of this &s;train, a Combina|tion,
<PB REF="84"> by rai&s;ing &s;uch reports to deterre the people from the reading of my writings. I confe&s;s, upon all this I was not much &s;orry for the event, that M^r <HI>K.</HI> had in this book brought forth his accu&s;ations, that at la&s;t I might know my errors that I could never hear of before, &amp; that was at la&s;t put into a capacity of making my defence; when if it had not been for this man I might have &s;till been judged erroneous, &amp; neither I nor tho&s;e that believed and reported it, could with all our diligence have learned <HI>wherein;</HI> I under&s;tand that the &s;ame &s;pirit doth &s;ometime carry this learned man into the Pulpit, and there in&s;tigate him to the like em|ploiment, wherewith he once tickled or netled the ears of the Auditory at <HI>Aldermanbury.</HI> Truly I never thought my name, or de&s;cription, wor|thy to be brought into a Pulpit, though in a way of oppo&s;ition. I thought none had thus over-honoured me but M^r <HI>Tombs,</HI> nor dur&s;t I think my name capable of being the matter of &s;o honorable a triumph to M^r <HI>K.</HI> as by the diligence he u&s;eth for a victory he &s;eemeth to expect. But &s;eeing he hath &s;o much advantage of the ground (and &s;omtime the winde, though not the Sun) when he manfully preacheth again&s;t me at a hundred miles di&s;tance; I mu&s;t give him the better there, and take him when he comes within my reach. And though I &s;hall be as be as brief as I can, yet &s;o much I intend, if God vouch&s;afe me time and ability, as &s;hall &s;hew you rea&s;on to pity this Learned man, that ever his corrupti|ons &s;hould lay him open to the prevalency of tho&s;e temptations which have ingaged him in &s;o unhappy a de&s;ign as to &s;erve the enemy of truth in employing his excellent parts in fal&s;e accu&s;ing and unju&s;t defaming his brother that would fain live in peace, endeavouring to deprive mens &s;ouls of the benefit of his labors, and that in his mercenary &s;erving the lu&s;ts of another, for a little vain-glory of applau&s;e he &s;hould &s;o wound his Reputation with the &s;ober and godly, and make &s;uch work for an accu&s;ing con&s;cience, as he hath once and again done; yea, that he &s;hould &s;till &s;o much neglect the 9^t^h Command. as to become M^r <HI>Eyres</HI> &s;econd, and M^r <HI>Crandons</HI> third. And for tho&s;e Reverend Brethren, who have (from &s;everal parts) &s;olicited me to forbear further Controver&s;al debates, le&s;t I be deprived of opportunity for more profitable works (whereto they importune me) I profe&s;s to them that I take it for the greate&s;t affliction of my life, that I am nece&s;&s;itated to this defen&s;ive controver&s;al way of writing, &amp; mo&s;t gladly would I be at peace, if men would give me leave; and if they will but convince me, that I may law|fully be &s;ilent where the Truth of God, the &s;ucce&s;s of all my former la|bors, and the good of men is &s;o nearly concerned, I &s;hall re&s;olve on &s;i|lence; (For my own intere&s;t I hope I can &s;ubject it to Chri&s;ts;) But till then I mu&s;t crave their pardon, yea, and their compa&s;&s;ion of me, who am to my great trouble detained from a more plea&s;ing kinde of work.</P>
<CLOSER><DATELINE><DATE>May 23. 1654.</DATE></DATELINE></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<PB REF="84">
<P><HI>REader, To prevent the mi&s;take of my &s;en&s;e, I de&s;ire thee to correct the&s;e faults before thou reade&s;t; many &s;maller there are which may be ea&s;ily di&s;cerned.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<HEAD><HI>Errata</HI> in the Epi&s;tle to C. G. <HI>Whaly.</HI></HEAD>
<P>PAge 4. line 23. reade <HI>To which end.</HI> l. <HI>penult.</HI> r. <HI>your &s;elf.</HI> p. 5. l. 19. for <HI>their</HI> r. <HI>your</HI> p. 6. l. 7. for <HI>unde&s;ervedly</HI> r. <HI>unre&s;ervedly.</HI></P>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>Again&s;t <HI>Blake.</HI></HEAD>
<P>Pag. 1. l. 32. for 1. r. <HI>i. e.</HI> l. 5. for <HI>Cor.</HI> r. <HI>Sen.</HI> p. 6. l. 45. for <HI>our faith</HI> r. <HI>one faith.</HI> p. 7. l. 30. for <HI>former</HI> r. <HI>formall.</HI> p. 25. l. 33. for <HI>recipiatur</HI> r. <HI>recipitur.</HI> l. 38. r. <HI>&s;o receiveth.</HI> p. 38. l. 22. r. <HI>non contingat.</HI> p. 46. l. 11. for <HI>&s;n.</HI> r. <HI>&s;o.</HI> p. 62. l. 15. for <HI>man</HI> r. <HI>an unregene|rate man.</HI> p. 85. l. 5. for <HI>Ju&s;tification</HI> r. <HI>Impo&s;ition</HI> or <HI>In&s;titution.</HI> p. 89. l. 15. r, <HI>expect order.</HI> p. 91. l. 33. r. <HI>inceptive.</HI> p. 92. l. 14. for <HI>dura</HI> r. <HI>pura.</HI> and for <HI>&s;ubconditions</HI> r. <HI>&s;ubconditione.</HI> p. 97. l. 22. r. <HI>though it was.</HI> p. 99. l. 25. r. <HI>The Apo&s;tle &s;peaking.</HI> p. 100. l. 32. for <HI>particu|lar</HI> r. <HI>peculiar.</HI> p. 104. l. 22. r. <HI>but &s;o come.</HI> p. 117. r. <HI>your &s;elf.</HI> p. 118. l. 36. r. <HI>to many.</HI> p. 120. l. 41. blot out <HI>to.</HI> p. 133. l. 30. for <HI>distingui&s;h r. dimini&s;h.</HI> p. 134. l. 41. blot out <HI>that.</HI> p. 136. l. 5. for 4. r. <HI>quatuor.</HI> l. 6. for <HI>this r. his.</HI> p. 138. l. 2. for <HI>&s;eal r. &s;tate.</HI> p. 145. l. 11. r. <HI>by Mo&s;es</HI> Gen. 2.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>Again&s;t M^r <HI>K.</HI></HEAD>
<P>Pag. 4. l. 25. r. <HI>&s;piritui.</HI> p. 5. l. 31. r. <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">emini.</HI> p. 29. l. antepenult. r. <HI>be &s;o called.</HI> p. 28. l. 30. for <HI>vivos r. veros.</HI> p 31. l. 42. for <HI>the r. them.</HI> p. 51. l. 34. for <HI>now r. enough.</HI> p. 97. l. 45. r. <HI>on beleeving.</HI> p. 109. l. 17. for <HI>gracefull r. gratefull.</HI> p. 110. l. 31. r. <HI>in diem.</HI> p. 111. l. 9. r. <HI>whither.</HI> p. 121. l. 25. r. <HI>efficientes.</HI> p. 123. l. 6. for <HI>only r. wholly.</HI> l. 24. r. <HI>he that proves.</HI> p. 143. l. 37. for <HI>obtrude r obtunde.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>In the Epi&s;tle before that again&s;t <HI>L. Colvin.</HI></HEAD>
<P>Pag. 3. l. 24. for <HI>fear. r. bear.</HI> ibid Praef. Apol. p. 3. l. 18. for <HI>meer r. neer.</HI> p. 4. l. 13. r. <HI>rever&s;us.</HI> In the Contents p. 3. l. 6. for <HI>Decree r. Degree.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>Again&s;t <HI>L. C.</HI></HEAD>
<P>P. 194. l. 3. r. <HI>before both</HI> p. 224 l. 2. r. <HI>work?</HI> and <HI>Di&s;po&s;itio.</HI> p. 229. l. 28. r. <HI>neerly.</HI> p. 237. l. 21. for <HI>after you r. ofter than.</HI> p. 250. l. 14. for <HI>becau&s;e r. be&s;ides.</HI> p. 255. l. 38. for <HI>&s;ins r. &s;ons.</HI> p. 257. l. 35. for <HI>formerly r. formally.</HI> p. 282. l. 23. for <HI>Cavell</HI> r. <HI>Ravell.</HI> p. 294. l. 23. for <HI>Relative</HI> r. <HI>declarative.</HI> p. 301. l 16. r. <HI>intantum.</HI> p. 309. l. antepen. for <HI>Now r. Note.</HI> p. 310. l. ult. for <HI>&s;ive de merito r. &s;ine demerito.</HI> p. 324. l. 24. r. <HI>an instru|ment.</HI> p. 326. l. ult. r. <HI>&s;alvo.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>Again&s;t <HI>Crandon.</HI></HEAD>
<P>Pag. 12. l. 36. for <HI>parties r. partes.</HI> p. 15. l. 28. for <HI>endle&s;&s;e r. ended.</HI> p. 28. l. 2. for <HI>Now r. Nor.</HI> p. 35. l. 6. for <HI>wherein r. without.</HI> p. 37. l. 14 for <HI>&s;olid r. &s;ol'd.</HI> p. 55. l. 8. for <HI>that r. the.</HI> l. 14. r. <HI>obtrude.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<P>WHat&s;oever hath e&s;caped me in the&s;e Writings that is again&s;t Meekne&s;&s;e, Peace, and Brotherly Love, let it be all un&s;aid, and hereby revoked, and I de&s;ire the pardon of it from God and Man.</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>RICHARD BAXTER.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV2>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
<PB REF="85">
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
