That this is my sense I profess I knew not before, and should be sorry I should dwell so little at home that Mr B. should know me and my mind better than I do myself. I look upon him as my friend, and, —
Tat rat (f'lXuv xoiv, ov f/,o\iov ra ^^ni/.wra, \i.a,] tov; Oi, Kcci ^oovriffius xoiva/via.
But yet he may possibly be mistaken. For the present I will make bold to deny this to be my sense, and refer the reader, for evidence to be given to my negation, unto that chapter of my book whence Mr B. gathers my sense and meaning- Let them, then, that are concerned look to his following arguments (especially those two whom he affirms to have more wit than the rest, p. 204), and woe be to them if they find as many distinct mediums as there are figures hung up as signs of new arguments ! For my own part, whatever my thoughts are to the whole business pleaded about, I shall not (be they as mean and base as can be imagined) cast them away in such a scambling chase as this. Only, whereas (p. 205), speaking to somebody (I know not whom) whom he acknowledges to have some learning and wit, he says that " the act of the promise, law, or grant, constituting right, giving title, remitting the obligation to punishment, in itself is totally distinct from the act of declaring this to ourselves, which is said to be terminated in conscience, and is before it, and may be without it," etc., I shall, if it please him, desire that it may only, with a little alteration, be thus rendered, "The act of the promise" (not that I approve that expression, but at present it will serve the turn) " giving right, etc., is complete justification by faith, and is in itself totally distinct from, and in order of time before, any act of God justifying terminated in our con- sciences," and proved with one clear testimony or argument speaking to the terms and sense of the proposition, and I shall confess myself, as to what I have as yet published of my judgment about this business, to be concerned in the discourse. And so passing through the pikes of fifty-six arguments, I come to the ninth chapter, where I am again called to an account. Three things doth Mr B. pro- pose to confirmation in this chapter : —
" 1. That the elect are not justified from eternity.
" 2. That they arc not justified at Christ's death.
" 3. Not while they are infidels and impenitent."
Any man hving would wonder how I should come to stand in his way in this chapter ; but strong currents sometimes pass their bounds in their courses, and bear all before them. Real or reputed success gives great thoughts and pretexts
for any thinsr. Ai yap il/Tpa'^ai ^nval avyKpii^ai ko.) trvSKtarai to. rotaZra, ovtfSti, Dcmost.
Olynth. B. ?'. In the very treatise which Mr B. considers in these imputation!?, I have expressly denied (and in particular to Mr B.) that I maintain any one of these ! If he should send but his servant, and tell me that he is not to be found in such an opinion, I would believe him. But " quid verba audiat facta cum videat ?" If I do maintain them indeed, must I be believed upon my denial ? But " en tabulas \" let my book traduced be consulted. I dispute as well as I can against justification from eternity, and that I cannot do it like Mr B. is my unhappiness, not my crime.
CO-1' OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST,
I hope every one must not be sentenced to be of an opinion which he cannot con- fute so learnedly as another moi'e learned man may. For justification at the death of Christ (though I must assure the reader that I have other thoughts of the great transaction of the business of our salvation in the person of our Repre- sentative than are consistent with Mr B.'s principles, or than I have yet published, wherein I have the consent of persons as eminently insighted in the mystery of the gospel as any I know in the world), I directly affirm, and endeavour to prove, that the elect are not then actually justified, but, notwithstanding what is done for them, until their own actual believing, they are obnoxious to the law, etc., as at large chap. xii. p. 75 [p. 468] of that treatise, which includes the last particu- lar also.
But we must proceed, "non qua eundum est, sed quaitur." In the entrance of his ninth chapter, Mr B. attempts to prove that the elect are not justified from eternity, and concludes his discourse: —
" The words of one that writes this way are these : —
" ' Here two things may be observed: —
'"1. What we ascribe to the merit of Christ, — namely, the accomplishment of the condition which God required to make way that the obligation which he had freely put upon himself might be in actual force. And so much (I leave to himself to consider how rightly) doth Mr B. assign to our works, thes. 26.'
" And all know that a condition as such is no cause, but an antecedent or ' causa sine qua non.' And is not the death of Christ here fairly advanced, and his merits well vindicated! My constant affirmation was, and still is, that man's works are not in the least degree truly and properly meritorious, and that they are such mere conditions of our salvation (not of our tirst justification) as that they are no causes of any right we have, no not to a bit of bread, much less to heaven. Do not these men well de- fend the honour of Christ's merits, then, if they give no more to them than I do to man's works? that is, not to be the meritoi-ious cause so much as of an hour's temporal mercy ; that is, to be properly no merit at all. It seems to me, therefore, that they do, by their doctrine of eternal justification or pardon, not only destroy justification by faith, but also all the merits of Christ, and leave nothing for them to do for the causing of our pardon or justification before God. Nay, whether this learned man can make Christ's suSerings and obedience so much as a bare condition, let them consider that read him, aifirming that conditions properly must be uncertain, and nothing is so to God, therefore there can be no condition with God, therefore Christ's death could be no more."