Pag. 228. He begins his Arguments. The first is [Because in vain are additions of numbers, without which any thing may be done: But without addition of works the act of justifying is perfect, Ergo.] Answer. 1. As if the Question were of the [Act of justifying,] and not of Justification passively taken. Gods act hath no imperfection, when yet it maketh not a perfect work. 2. Its but spleen and partiality to harp upon the term [works] still to seduce your Readers to believe that I am for such works as Paul denieth. I use not the phrase of [Justification by works] nor think it fit to be used, unless rarely, or to explain such texts of Scripture as do use it, or terms equipollent. 3. Justification is neither perfect nor real, without a faith in Christ as Head and Husband, and Lord, and Teacher, and Intercessor, as well as a Sacrifice for sin. Nor is it perfect or true, without repenting and loving Christ. 4. Justification is so far perfect at first, as that no sin past or existent is unpardoned. But it is not so perfect, but that, 1. Many future sins must have renewed ⟨p. 288⟩pardon. 2. And means is to be used by us, (believing again at least) for that end. 3. And the continuance of pardon is given us but conditionally, (though we shall certainly perform the condition.) 4. And the most perfect sort of Justification (by sentence at Judgement) is still behind. Are these things doubtful among Divines or Christians? That the Church must be thus molested by such disputing volumes against it, to make the Papists and other enemies believe we hold I know not what? Read the many Arguments of learned Sandford and Parker de Descensu, and Bp. Usher de Descensu (to the Jesuit) by which they prove that all separated souls, as separated, are under penalty, and that Christs soul as separated was so: and then tell us whether your fancy of absolutely perfect Justification at the first will hold or not. I wonder that men should so little know the difference betwixt Earth and Heaven; a sinner in flesh, and a Saint that is equal to the Angels of God? and should dream of such perfection short of heaven, the place of our perfection?
Pag. 228. He begins his Arguments. The first is [Because in vain are additions of numbers, without which any thing may be done: But without addition of works the act of justifying is perfect, Ergo.] Answer. 1. As if the Question were of the [Act of justifying,] and not of Justification passively taken. Gods act hath no imperfection, when yet it maketh not a perfect work. 2. Its but spleen and partiality to harp upon the term [works] still to seduce your Readers to believe that I am for such works as Paul denyeth. I use not the phrase of [Justification by works] nor think it fit to be used, unless rarely, or to explain such texts of Scripture as do use it, or terms equipollent. 3. Justification is neither perfect nor real, without a faith in Christ as Head and Husband, and Lord, and Teacher, and Intercessor, as well as a Sacrifice for sin. Nor is it perfect or true, without repenting and loving Christ. 4. Justification is so far perfect at first, as that no sin past or existent is unpardoned. But it is not so perfect, but that, 1. Many future sins must have renewed ⟨p. 288⟩pardon. 2. And means is to be used by us, (believing again at least) for that end. 3. And the continuance of pardon is given us but conditionally, (though we shall certainly perform the condition.) 4. And the most perfect sort of Justification (by sentence at Judgement) is still behind. Are these things doubtfull among Divines or Christians? That the Church must be thus molested by such disputing volumes against it, to make the Papists and other enemies believe we hold I know not what? Read the many Arguments of learned Sandford and Parker de Descensu, and Bp. Ʋsher de Descensu (to the Jesuite) by which they prove that all separated souls, as separated, are under penalty, and that Christs soul as seperated was so: and then tell us whether your fancy of absolutely perfect Justification at the first will hold or not. I wonder that men should so little know the difference betwixt Earth and Heaven; a sinner in flesh, and a Saint that is equal to the Angels of God? and should dream of such perfection short of heaven, the place of our perfection?
