And this maketh me admire, how my Learned Brother could let •f all one Passage, wherein he may be so palpably and ocularly convinced to the contrary by the first looking upon my Arguments, That which he saith, is, The strength of my Arguments lieth upon a supposition, That Conditions have a moral Efficiency (not to examine how freely he manageth his Answer to such a supposition.) Now this is that which I affirm, That there is not one o• these ten Arguments brought against Justification by Works, as a Conditio sine quâ non, that is built upon this supposition, or hath any dependence on it, only in the fourth Argument, after the full strength thereof is delivered, then I do ex abun•anti, and by way of amplification, show, that a Condition in a Covenant strictly taken (I put in that limitation) hath a moral Efficiency, and is a causa cum quâ, not a causa sine quâ non: But this is only by way of addition, The Argument did not depend on this Assertion.1 And my Learned Brother saith, Some conditions (and most among men) are Moral Impulsive causes. I find another thing urged likewise, as not fair dealing, and that is, To fasten ⟨image 4⟩upon his Opinion, that we may say a Justifying Repentance, as well as Justifying Faith, and also Justifying Love; Indeed in my Book it is Law, and that was the Printers fault, which I am sorry for, because I see my Learned Brother so much moved at that, as if he were charged to hold a justifying Law, it should have been Love: But why doth this offend my Reverend Brother? He doth not say, It is not true to say, justifying Repentance, or justifying Love, but it is not fit to say, (Confess. in the Pref.) Why is it not fit, if it be true? It may be such an expression would be offensive to godly ears, and therefore not fit: Can Love be a Condition of Justification, and yet not Justifying Love as a Condition? This seemeth very strange. But it's said, Faith hath a peculiar fitness and aptness to receive Christ, which Love hath not. It is true, and therefore Faith only Justifieth, and not Love: Thus it maketh against him, and not for him. Besides with him, Faith justifieth as a Condition, not from its peculiar aptness, and therefore Love and Repentance being Conditions, must justify aequè with Faith, though not aequaliter, Faiths aptness is the remote reason, as it is a Condition, that is the proxime and formal reason:
And this maketh me admire, how my Learned Brother could let •f all one Passage, wherein he may be so p•lp•bly and ocularly convinced to the contrary by the first looking upon my Arguments, That which he saith, is, The strength of my Arguments lieth upon a supposition, That Conditions have a moral Efficiency (not to examine how freely he manageth his Answer to such a supposition.) Now this is that which I aff•rme, That there is not one o• these ten Arguments brought against Justification by Workes, as a Conditio sine quâ non, that is built upon this su•position, or hath any dependance on it, onely in the fourth Argument, after the full strength thereof is delivered, then I do ex abun•anti, and by way of amplification, shew, that a Condition in a Covenant strictly taken (I put in that limitation) hath a moral Efficiencie, and is a causa cum quâ, not a causa sine quâ non: But this is onely by way of addition, The Argument did not depend on this Assertion.1 And my Learned Brother saith, Some conditions (and most among men) are Morall Impulsive causes. I finde another thing urged likewise, as not fair dealing, and that is, To fasten ⟨image 4⟩upon his Opinion, that we may say a Justifying Repentance, as well as Justifying Faith, and also Justifying Love; Indeed in my Book it is Law, and that was the Printers fault, which I am sorry for, because I see my Learned Brother so much moved at that, as if he were charged to hold a justifying Law, it should have been Love: But why doth this offend my Reverend Brother? He doth not say, It is not true to say, justifying Repentance, or justifying Love, but it is not fit to say, (Confess. in the Pref.) Why is it not fit, if it be true? It may be such an expression would be offensive to godly eares, and therefore not fit: Can Love be a Condition of Justification, and yet not Justifying Love as a Condition? This seemeth very strange. But it's said, Faith hath a peculiar fitnesse and aptnesse to receive Christ, which Love hath not. It is true, and therefore Faith onely Justifieth, and not Love: Thus it maketh against him, and not for him. Besides with him, Faith justifieth as a Condition, not from its peculiar aptnesse, and therefore Love and Repentance being Conditions, must justifie aequè with Faith, though not aequaliter, Faiths aptnesse is the remote reason, as it is a Condition, that is the proxime and formall reason:
- 1In his Apology, pag. 8.
