Of justification four disputations clearing and amicably defending the truth against the unnecessary oppositions…

And yet, if I had said none of all this, I see not that I need any more then to deny your consequence, as being wholly ungrounded: For it followeth not, that if it be an essential part, that therefore it must have the Denomination of the whole: yea, though the whole be said to work by that part. The Brain and Heart are essential parts of the ⟨p. 348⟩Body: and yet not to be called the Body; and it is more proper to say that the body works by the Brain or Heart; or that the vegetative soul doth work by the natural heat and Spirits; then to say, the Body worketh by the Body, or the vegetative soul by it self. I will explain all together in my usual Similitude, which is Dr. Prestons (or rather Pauls) A condemned Beggar is offered a Pardon, and also to be made a Queen, if she will but take the Prince for her Husband. Now here put your Questions. 1. Is Love any part of the Condition of her Pardon and Dignity? Answer, Yes: An essential part; for Consent is of the Essence of it: and Love is essential to true consent, to receive any offered good: Not love as it is a Passion, but as it is an act of the rational Appetite; which is but Veil; And Eligere, Consentire, Acceptare are nothing else but a respective Willing. 2. But it is not Love as a Virtue in general, or as exercised on any other object, which is this essential part of the Condition: but only love to him whom she marrieth: And so her first love is necessary to her Pardon and Dignity as begun; and her continued love (and marriage-faithfulness) is necessary to them▪ as they are to be continued: (supposing the Prince to know the heart as Christ doth.) Qu. 2. Is it then a meet phrase to say, that she is pardoned and dignified by loving such a Prince? Answ. It hath some Truth in it, but it is not a fit speech; but rather that it is by marrying him, because Love is but a part, or as it were an Affection of that Marriage Covenant or consent, which indeed doth dignify her: Love may be without marriage, but not Marriage (cordially) without Love. So in our present case, justifying faith is the very Marriage Consent or Covenant with Christ; It is therefore fitter to say, we are justified by it, then by love; because the former expresseth the full condition: the latter not: Qu. 3. If love be an essential part of the Marriage-consent, then may we not as well say, Marriage causeth Marriage, as to say, Marriage causeth Love.

And yet, if I had said none of all this, I see not that I need any more then to deny your consequence, as being wholly ungrounded: For it followeth not, that if it be an essential part, that therefore it must have the Denomination of the whole: yea, though the whole be said to work by that part. The Brain and Heart are essential parts of the