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

But saith Mr, Blake [This is like the old Argument; Evil works merit condemnation: therefore good works merit salvation. An ill meaning damns our good meaning; therefore saves.]

Repl. First, A palpable mistake. Meriting, and saving by merit, are effects or efficiencies so plainly separable from the things themselves, that the invalidity of the Consequence easily appears: But in good sadness, did you believe when you wrote this, that he that argueth from the description or nature of a privation, ⟨p. 41⟩to the description or nature of the thing, of which it is the Privation, or that argueth from the Law of opposites and contradictions, doth argue like him that argues from the moral separable efficiency, or effect of the one, to the like efficiency or effect of the other?

Secondly, But understand me to argue from the effect it self if you please, so it be as affixed by the unchangeable Law or Covenant of God: I doubt not but the Argument will hold good. As under the Law of works it was a good argument to say [Not-perfect-obeying is the condemning evil: therefore perfect-obeying is the justifying condition.] So is it a good argument under the Covenant of Grace to say, Not-believing in Christ as King, Priest and Prophet, is the specially-condemning unbelief; therefore believing in Christ as King, Priest & Prophet, is the faith by which we are justified] The main force of the reason lieth here, because else the Covenant were equivocating, and not Intelligible, if when it saith [He that believeth shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned.] it did speak of one kind or act of faith in one Proposition, and of another in the other. If when it is said, [He that believeth shall be justified from all things, &c. and he that believeth not shall be condemned] [if you believe you shall not come into condemnation; but if you believe not, you are condemned, and the wrath of God abideth on you] [He that believeth shall be forgiven, and he that believeth not shall not be forgiven] I say, if the Affirmative and Negative Propositions, the Promise and the Threatening do not here speak of the same believing, but divers, then there is no hope that we should understand them, and the language would necessitate us to err. Now the Papists Argument ab effectis hath no such bottom; Bad works damn, therefore good works save. For the Covenant is not [He that doth good works shall be saved, and he that doth bad works shall be condemned] But [he that obeyeth perfectly shall be justified, and he that doth not shall be condemned] Or if they argue from the threatening of the Gospel against bad works, to the merit of good, quoad modum procurandi, it will not hold, viz. that Evil works procure damnation by way of merit: therefore good works procure salvation by way of merit. For there is not eadem ratio, and so no ground for the Consequence; Nor did I argue ad modum procurandi;]