3"cars since at my ordination ; but for tliat learned and jiulicious treatise of his against ]\Ir. Eyre, wherein he hatli cast ^eat hght upon tliis controversy, as excellent Mr. Baxter and j\Ir. Wood- bridge have also done. But, alas ! what evidence is sufficient to satisfy ignorant and obstinate men !
Sir, It pities me to see the lamentable confusion you are in ; you are forced, by the evidence of truth, to yield and own the substance of what I contend for : you have yielded the covenant to be conse- quently conditional, in p. 84. of your Reply; you Iiave also as plainly yielded that the appUcation of pardoning mercii unto our souls is in order of nature^ consequent unto believing, p. 31. of your Reply. From both which concessions, in your own words recited, this conclusion is evident and unavoidable, viz.
That no adult person, notwithstanding God's eternal election, and Christ's meritt)rious death and satisfaction, according to the constitution and order of the new covenant, can either be justified in this world, or saved in the world to come, unless he first believe.
For if the application of pardoning mercy unto our souls is in order of nature, consequent unto believing, (as you truly affirm it to be) then, according to the constitution and order of the new co- venant, no application of pardoning mercy can be made to our souls before we believe. And if it be evident (as you say it is, p. 84?.) that unto a full and complete enjoyment of all the promises of the coi^nant, Jaith 071 our part is required; then, as no man can be actually justified in this world, so neither can he be saved before, or w ithout faith, in the world to come. And if you did but see the true suspending nature of faith, which you plainly yield, in these two concessions; you w^ould quickly grant the conditional nature of it : for what is the proper nature and true Vjotion of a condition but to suspend the benefits and grants of that covenant in which it is so inserted.? And thus the controversy betwixt us is fiiirly issued. But I doubt you understand not what you have here written, or are troubled w ith a very baa memory ; because I find you in a far dif- ferent note from this, in p. 103. of your Reply, where you say, ' That if Jesus Christ fulfilled the law, and purchased heaven and ' happiness for men, (as all true Protestants hitherto have taught)
* then nothing can remain, but to declare this to them to incline
* them to beliete and accept it ; and to prescribe in what way and ' by what means they shall finally come to inherit eternal life. To
* affirm, therefore, that faith and repentance are the conditions of
* the new covenant required of us in point of duty, antecedent to
* the benefit of the promise, doth necessarily suppose, that Christ ' hath not done all for us, nor purchased a right to life for any :
* but only made way thjit they might have it upon certain tenas,
532 VINDICIARUM VINDE\%
* or, as some say, he hath merited that we might merit : but the
* conditions of the covenant are not to be performed by the head ' and members both, Gal. iv. 4. Christ, therefore, having in our
* stead performed the conditions of hfe, there remains nothing but ' a promise and the obedience of children as the fruit and effect
* thereof to them that believe in liim, together with means of ob- " taining the full possession which here we want/
Reply. Either these passages I have here cited and compared were fetched at a great distance of time, out of authors differing as much in judgment as you and I do, and so the dissonancy of them is the mere effect of oblivion and ineogitancy ; or else your intellec- tuals are more confused and weak than I am willing to suspect them to be. For if the application of pardoning mercy to our souls is in order of nature, consequent to believing, as you truly say it was, then, certainly, notwithstanding Christ's fulfilling the Taw, and pur- chasing heaven and happiness for men, something else must remain to be done, besides declaring this to them, to incline them to believe and accept it, or prescribing to them in what way they shall finally come to inherit eternal life. For, besides those declarations and prescriptions you talk of, faith itself must be wrought in the souls of men, or else pardoning mercy is not in order of nature, conse- quent unto believing, as you said it was : for all the external decla- rations and prescriptions in the world are not faith itself, but only the means to beget it ; which may, or may not become effectual to that end.
Stcondly^ Whereas you say, this (senseless notion) is consequent upon the doctrine of all true Protestants ; you grossly abuse them, and make all the true Protestants in the world guilty of worse than Arminian, or Antinomian dotage. The Antinomian, indeed, makes our actual justification to be nothing else but the manifestation or declaration of our justification from eternity, or the time of Christ's death. And the Arminian tells us, that the declaration of the gos- pel to men is sufficient to bring them to faith by the assisting grace of the Spirit. But your notion is worse than the very dregs of both, and yet you tack it as a just consequent to the doctrine of all true Protestants.
Reply y Thirdly y You say. That to affirm Jaith and re- ^ ^^
■pentance to be the conditions of the new covenant required ^' of us ill point ofduty^ antecedent to the henejit of the pronuse^ doth necessarily suppose that Christ hath not done all for us, 7ior pur- chased a right to life for any ; hut only made way that they might have it upon certain terms, or merited that zee might merit. Here, sir, you vilely abuse all those worthy divines before-mentioned, who liave made faith the condition of the new covenant, pinning upon them both Popery and Judaism. Popery, yea, the dregs of Popery,
VI^JDICIARUM VTNDEX. 5SS