Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	believe_v	faith_n	holy_a	1,533	5	5.3032	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A76812	The covenant sealed. Or, A treatise of the sacraments of both covenants, polemicall and practicall. Especially of the sacraments of the covenant of grace. In which, the nature of them is laid open, the adæquate subject is largely inquired into, respective to right and proper interest. to fitnesse for admission to actual participation. Their necessity is made known. Their whole use and efficacy is set forth. Their number in Old and New Testament-times is determined. With several necessary and useful corollaries. Together with a brief answer to Reverend Mr. Baxter's apology, in defence of the treatise of the covenant. / By Thomas Blake, M.A. pastor of Tamworth, in the counties of Stafford and Warwick.	Blake, Thomas, 1597?-1657.; Cartwright, Christopher, 1602-1658.	1655 (1655)	Wing B3144; Thomason E846_1; ESTC R4425	638,828	706

a person capable of salvation on our part required It is a penitent and petitioning Faith whereby we receive the Promises of mercy but we are not justified partly by prayer partly by Repentance and partly by Faith but that faith which stirreth up godly sorrow for sin and enforceth us to pray for pardon and salvation Faith is a necessary and lively instrument of Justification which is amongst the number of true causes not being a cause without which the thing is not done but a cause whereby it is done The cause without which a thing is not done is onely present in the action and doth nothing therein but as the eye is an active instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing so is faith also for justifying If it be demanded whose instrument it is It is the instrument of the soul wrought therein by the Holy Ghost and is the free gift of God In the Covenant of works works were required as the cause of life and happinesse but in the Covenant of grace though repentance be necessary and must accompany faith yet not repentance but faith onely is the cause of life The cause not efficient as works should have been if man had stood in the former Covenant but instrumentall onely for it is impossible that Christ the death and blood of Christ and our faith should be together the efficient or procuring causes of Justification or salvation Rom. 3.21 22 28 30. Gal. 2.16 17. Rom. 4.2 3. When the Apostle writeth that man is not justified by works or through works by the Law or through the Law opposing Faith and Works in the matter of Justification but not in respect of their presence Faith I say and works not faith and merits which could never be without doubt he excludes the efficiency and force of the Law and works in justifying But the particles By and Of do not in the same sense take Justification from the Law and Works in which they give it to faith For faith onely doth behold and receive the promises of life and mercy but the Law and Works respect the Commandments not the Promises of meer grace When therefore Justification and life is said to be by Faith it is manifestly signified that faith receiving the promise Deut. 7.12 10.12 Jer. 7.23 Lev. 19.17 18. Luk. 10.27 Mark 12.30 doth receive righteousnesse and life freely promised Obedience to all Gods Commandments is covenanted not as the cause of life but as the qualification and effect of faith and as the way to life Faith that imbraceth life is obediential and fruitful in all good works but in one sort faith is the cause of obedience and good works and in another of Justification and life eternal These it seeketh in the promises of the Covenant those it worketh and produceth as the cause doth the effect Faith was the efficient cause of that precious oblation in Abel Heb. 11.4 7 c. of reverence and preparing the Ark in Noah of obedience in Abraham but it was the instrument onely of their Justification For it doth not justifie as it produceth good works but as it receiveth Christ though it cannot receive Christ unlesse it bring forth good works A disposition to good works is necessary to Justification being the qualification of an active and lively faith Good works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of Justification and so to our final absolution if God give opportunity but they are not the cause of but onely a precedent qualification or condition to final forgivenesse and eternal blisse If then when we speak of the conditions of the Covenant of grace by condition we understand whatsoever is required on our part as precedent concomitant or subsequent to Justification repentance faith and obedience are all conditions but if by condition we understand what is required on our part as the cause of the good promised though onely instrumental faith or belief in the promises of free mercy is the onely condition Faith and works are opposed in the matter of Justification and salvation in the Covenant not that they cannot stand together in the same subject for they be inseparably united but because they cannot concur or meet together in one and the same Court to the Justification or absolution of man For in the Court of Justice according to the first Covenant either being just he is acquitted or unjust he is condemned But in the Court of mercy if thou receive the promise of pardon which is done by a lively faith thou art acquitted and set free and accepted as just and righteous but if thou believe not thou art sent over to the Court of Justice Thus far Mr. Ball. In which words of his the blood of Christ faith in his blood repentance and works have all of them their due place assigned them The blood of Christ as the alone efficient procuring cause Faith as the instrument giving interest and making application Repentance as a necessary qualification of the justified person in order to glory In this which is the good old Protestant doctrine God loseth nothing of his grace but all is free in the work Christ loseth nothing of his merit it stands alone as the procuring cause Faith receives all from Christ but takes nothing off from the free grace of God or Christs merits God loseth nothing of his Soveraignty and man is not at all dispensed with in his duty God is advanced in his goodnesse and Soveraignty man is kept humble thankful and in subjection no place being left for his pride or gap open for licentiousnesse A Digression concerning the Instrumentality of Faith in Justification HEre I cannot passe by that which Mr. Baxter hath animadverted on some passages of mine in the Treatise of the Covenant concerning the Instrumentality of Faith After I had spoke to our Justification by Faith in opposition to Justification by works in several Propositions of which he is not pleased to take any notice I infer pag. 80. These things considered I am truly sorry that Faith should be denyed to have the office or place of an instrument in our Justification nay scarce allowed to be called an instrument of our receiving Christ that justifies us Mr. Baxter not acquainting his Reader at all with the premises immediately falls upon this inference making himself somewhat merry with my professing my self to be truly sorry for this thing telling me I was as sorry that men called and so called faith the instrument of justification as you are that I deny it acquainting his Reader with his Reasons which he would have to be compared with mine which he passes over in silence 1. No Scripture doth sayes he either in the letter or sense call faith an instrument of Justification This the Reader must take on his word and it should further be considered whether he do not in the same page contradict himself where he saith It is onely the unfitnesse or impropriety of the phrase that he

of his Reign began to seek after the God of his Fathers and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places and the groves and the carved Images and the molten Images 2 Chron. 34.3 4. But it was in the eighteenth year of his Reign that he could reach to keep a Passeover Chap. 35.19 Hezekiah as appears hasted to keep a Passeover yet durst not be over-hasty he could not keep it on the day which originally in the Law was appointed But upon advice put it off to the second moneth because the Priests had not sanctified themselves sufficiently 2 Chro. 30.3 Ezra kept a Passeover upon the return out of the Captivity Ezra 6.19 and the reason is given vers 20 21. For the Priests and Levites were purified together all of them were pure and killed the Passeover for all the children of the captivity and for their brethren the Priests and for themselves and the children of Israel which were come again out of Captivity and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthinesse of the Heathen of the Land to seek the Lord God of Israel did eat Had not the Priests and Levites been thus purified and the people thus separated the Passeover it appeares had been longer delayed As these saw necessitating occasion for omission of this Ordinance which yet is not charged as their sin so may also the Ministers of Christ see like occasion for delay of administration of the Lords Supper And there is advantage on their part seeing there was a prescript time in the Law for the observation of the one but no limited time in the Gospel for the administration of the other Sometimes a Minister by providence is cast upon such a people that scarce three are able to discern what they have in hand when they are about this duty and therefore he sees no more reason to call them to it then Christ saw to call his disciples newly chosen unto private fastings or the Apostle to give meat to babes edification is their great businesse their whole businesse they may stay the time that they may administer it to edification sometimes it evidently appeares that the rent is in a way to be made so great by their administration through the observance of some working errour upon the judgment in others that are so principled that none but high Saints are for this Ordinance that they see danger in proceeding in it And though I do not doubt but that it is often forborn out of sinful neglect and by truly consciencious Ministers sometimes out of over-much indulgence of their brethrens weaknesse and their own over-rigid principles yet as I do believe that all consciencious Pastours who for some space of time forbear do judge that there is cause for such forbearance so I do believe that upon some occasions pro hic nunc it may justly be forborn And whatsoever exception is taken against Arguments drawn from Analogy as not concluding of which I need to say no more then I have already spoken yet I shall conclude that this which is drawn from the Passeover which is rather from example then analogy is cogent If that of the London-Divines in their Divine Right of Church-Government pag. 20 21. quoted and approved by Reverend Mr. Jeanes pag. 21. of his Treatise be of weight That whatsoever actions were done by Saints recorded in Scripture upon such grounds as are of morall perpetual and common concernment to one person as well as to another to one Church as well as to another these actions are obligatory to all and a rule to after-generations then this Argument grounded on the example of such actions is not to be charged as not concluding yea though we had no such Example to lead us as perhaps they had none to be a precedent to them yet those reasons which led them or those that are equivalent may lead us likewise Fourthly 4. Rule There is no prescript for the time or frequency of the observation of the Lords Supper There is no definitive time in the Gospel for observation nor any precise determinate prescript for the frequency of the Lords Supper But when and how often Christian prudence must order yet being an holy exercise the day which we are to keep holy calls for it being the Lords Supper what time so meet as the Lords day The whole community of the faithful being interested in it it is to be observed at the time of their publick meetings which occasionally may be at other times but must be at that time And in case breaking of bread Act. 20.7 be meant of the Lords Supper as most affirm and I will not oppose it is out of question But yet I cannot think that every holy duty is alwaies to be the work of every holy meeting so the word should never be preached nor prayer publickly made without a Sacrament I believe there is somewhat extraordinary in a Sacrament comparative to other duties as there is in a Fast And though the Law for the Passeover and day of Atonement tye not us to annual observations onely of Sacraments and Fasts as it tyed the Jewes yet me thinks it speaks somewhat more then ordinary in them and that Fasts and Sacraments are not to be done in that frequency as daily addresses to God in prayer and our hearing from God in his Word And though I subscribe to Mr. Pemble and others that the Apostles words As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup implyes that it should be often A Christian should not seldome in his life partake of this Ordinance yet I suppose it doth allow if not imply longer intermission then is to be in other duties The primitive times perhaps in some places at least made this Ordinance over-common celebrating it as is said every day in other places every Lords day Mr. Pemble who religiously pleads for the frequent celebration of it sayes It is true that as in other so in this Divine institution Satan hath done much by his malicious policy to corrupt mens hearts in the observation of it When the Sacrament was administred often he brought it into contempt by the commonnesse of it Now that it is administred seldome through ignorance it is thought unnecessary How truly his observation is verified we see in two extreams into which different parties are run at this present time One part breaking bread almost at all their meetings and make no more of it then common bread looking after no Minister set apart for that work not so much as of their own making any one whom they will call a gifted disciple and such with them is every dipt disciple is set up for it They act it while some walk some talk in their presence with lesse reverence then befits grave persons at common meals I fear there was never more rudenesse in Corinth then may be seen here in Sacramental observations On the other hand the Sacrament is

or proper passive reception that it is therefore called receiving it self and it is therefore as I think called so because it is so and that it hath its concurrence and way of efficacy for possession I think few except Mr. Baxter will deny It followes Yet still I say if any will please to call it an instrument in this sense I will not quarrel with him for the impropriety of a phrase especially if some men had the same ingenuity that others have that say it is but Instrumentum Metaphoricum There is not I hope so much ingenuity desired as to smother or blind their reason If it be a metaphorical instrument there must be some real analogy between it and an instrument properly so called in doing that which is done by an instrument and when an instrument is as is affirmed an efficient An instrument without any efficiency at all is a strange kind of Metaphor It had been better to have held to the old dialect of Equivocal There followes But to say saith he that the act of Faith is the instrument of Ethical active reception which is that which I argued against is to say receiving Christ is the instrument of it self It will sure rather follow that Faith is the instrument of the soul in receiving Christ We say faith receives as we say the hand takes Faith is the instrument of the soul and not of it self in receiving Christ That faith is the eye and hand of the soul are Scripture Metaphors or the sword kills but we mean the man receives by the hand and the hand kills by the sword and so we mean the soul receives Christ by faith I explained my self in giving instance in mens usual language concerning faith which is rejected with no little disdain affirming that these speeches Faith is the eye of the soul the hand of the soul are Metaphors of meere humane use forgetting it seems that ever the Scripture said that Moses by faith endured as seeing him that is invisible or that the promise of the Spirit is received by faith If I had added that faith is the foot of the soul they had all been Metaphors of Divine use I urge Scripture texts We receive remission of sins by faith and an inheritance amongst them that are sanctified is received by faith Act. 26.18 To which is replyed If by signifie an instrumental cause it is either alwayes or sometimes You would not sure have your Reader believe that it is alwayes if but sometimes why do you take it for granted that so it signifies here This I might well retort If it signifie and an instumental cause sometimes why is it not made appear that it does not so signifie here But I confesse that by hath not alwayes such signification Bartimeus sate by the high-way-side begging in which place by is no instrument but when the particle by hath reference to that which hath immediate reference to a principal cause and sometimes is put to the principal cause it self I suppose nothing else but an instrument can be intended when Christ is said to be set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3.25 and that we are justified by his blood Rom. 5.9 I know not how the blood of Christ can be a principal cause and faith not denote an instrument I said why else is this righteousnesse sometimes called the righteousnesse of faith sometimes the righteousnesse of God by faith but that it is a righteousnesse which faith receives To this is replyed It is properer to say Credens recipit credendo the believer by believing receives it then to say faith especially the act receives it Here is an egregious subtilety It is more proper to say I receieve a gift by my hand then to say my hand receives it of the same stamp with another where it is said that Scripture sayes That we are justified by faith yet denyed that Scripture sayes that faith justifies But be it so that is properer does not Scripture speak as improperly Eye hath not seen Eare hath not heard It had been as much properer to have said No man hath seen with his eye or heard with his ear I quote Ephes 3.17 Christ dwells in us by faith and Gal. 3.14 We receive the promise of the Spirit through faith There I say Scripture speaks of faith as the souls instrument to receive Christ Jesus and to receive the Spirit from Christ Jesus and I am answered You odly change the question we are speaking of faiths instrumentality in receiving a right to Christ or Christ in relation and you go about to prove the reception of his Spirit or graces really or himself objectively and so we have a large discourse of Christs dwelling in us But is it not to the purpose to shew that the phrase by faith notes instrumentality which these texts make good and does not Christ dwell in us to more purposes then one Is it not to all purposes that by faith we receive him And then our receiving right to him is not here excluded I said the instrumentality of it in the work of justification is denyed because the nature of an instrument as considered in Physical operations doth not exactly belong to it which if it must be alwayes rigidly followed will often put us to a stand in the assignation of causes of any kind in moral actions To this is replyed I said 1. The action of the principal cause and of the instrument is but one action is not this true of moral operation as well as Physical To this I answer I think here some demurre might be put and scarce believe that it will be fully made good that the action of the principal agent and the instruments which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are alwayes exactly one though the act of the instrument may be in such cases Interpretatively called the act of the principal agent as David is said to have slain Vriah with the sword of the Ammonites Saul I am sure was of an other mind when intending the death of David he said Let not my hand be upon him but the hand of the Philistines 1 Sam. 18.17 But in case it be granted what hath he gained He adds 2. I say the instrument must have influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality that is in suo gene●e Demanding Is not this true of moral operations as well as Physical Then yeelding that it is true Moral causes may be said to have a lesse proper causation then Physical c. And this lesse proper causation I doubt not but may be found in faith and as proper a causation as an instrument of this nature will bear I say The material and formal causes in justification are scarce agreed upon and no marvel then in case men mind to contend about it that some question is raised about the instrument c. To this there is much spoke telling me what he would have me to have concluded

writers of note much differing one from the other in one particular subject I think I should first mention Bp. Davenant and Mr. Richard Br. in the point of justification Your Reader may well judge that he is amongst those that you say Confes pag. 459. you may safely and boldly advise all those that love the everlasting happiness of their souls that they take heed of Where you warn all such that they take heed of their doctrine who make the meer receiving of that is affiance in the righteousness of Christ to be the sole condition of their first justification excluding Repentance and the reception of Christ as a Teacher and King and Head and Husband from being any condition of it yea and will have no other condition of our justification at judgement who call that affiance only by the name of justifying faith and all other acts by the name of works And as to that which you here assert that he speaks as much as you for the interest of works in justification you may conceit it but those that have perused him will hardly be induced to assent to it Why is it then that he admits no other condition in the Covenant then faith only (m) In hoc foedere ad obtinendam reconciliationem justificationem atque aeternam vitam non alia requiritur conditio quàm verae vivae fidei In this Covenant saith he cap. 30. de Justit act pag. 396 there is no other condition then that of true faith required to obtain Reconciliation Justification and life eternall And having quoted Rom. 3.16 Rom. 4.5 Gal. 3.8 he adds Justification therefore and right to life eternall is suspended upon condition of faith alone But good works are also required of justified men not to constitute a state of justification or demerit life eternall but to yield obedience and testifie thankfulness towards God who justified us freely and hath markt out that way for their walk whom he hath designed for the kingdome of glory How is it (n) Justificatio igitur jus ad aeternam vitam ex conditione solius fidei suspenditur Sed ab hominibus jam justificatis opera etiam bona exiguntur non ad constituendum statum justificationis aut promerendam vitam aeternam sed ad exhibendam obedientiam testificandum gratitudinem erga Deum qui nos gratuito justificavit atque ad ambulandum in illâ viâ quam ad regnum gloriae designatis ipse delineavit then Haec gratia sc inhaerens ut saepe dictum est est appendix five consequens gratuitae justificationis that again and again as he says himself hath said that it is but an Appendix or consequence of Justification pag. 317 If he thus interest works in Justification how he will be reconciled to himself where in the passage before quoted he says that They that affirme that man is Justified by other vertues or works do not leave the whole glory of Mans salvation in Justification alone to God but ascribe some part to themselves And in all that you quote out of him Pag. 319 c. to Pag. 326. how little is there that looks this way You think you have just cause to charge contradictions upon the Reverend Author of the first and second part of Justification Because having delivered that very doctrine which here is held forth out of Davenant concerning the imputation of Christs active obedience in which they scarce differ in termes yet afterwards adds Though holy works do not justifie yet by them a man is continued in a state and condition of Justification So that did not the Covenant of grace interpose grosse and wicked waies would cut off our Justification and put us in a state of condemnation If you can reconcile Davenant to Davenant which I doubt not may be done this Author may then be as easily reconciled to himself Passages of this kind only you quote out of Davenant which are as much opposite to himself as to the Author now mentioned SECT VI. Vnbelief and Impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the Covenant of Grace THe next you enter upon is a Query How far unbelief and impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the new Covenant Opposing your self against that Position of mine Chap. 33. Pag. 245. The men in impenitency and unbelief that lie in sin and live in the neglect of the Sacrifice of the blood of Christ live in a continuall breach of Covenant Here you confesse that I cite no words of yours and therefore you are uncertain whether it is intended against you To which I say that it is intended against all that deny what in the Position is asserted which you seem to do Aphor. Thes 34. Pag. 163 Where you say That the Covenant of grace is not properly said be violated or its conditions broken except they be finally broken But before I enter upon the thing it self Men in finall unbelief and impenitency in Covenant with God a give me leave to assume thus much out of your own mouth That men in finall unbelief and impenitency are in Covenant with God This is clear They that break Covenant and render themselves properly guilty of the violation of if are in Covenant The breach of promise presupposes making of a promise and b●each of Covenant presupposes entrance into Covenant Jer. 34.18 The Lord threatneth those that trasgressed his Covenant and had not performed the words of Covenant And those that thus transgressed Covenant did likewise as wee see there enter into Covenant But these as you affirm break Covenant and render themselves properly guilty of violation of the conditions of it Therefore it follows that they are in Covenant And as the Covenant is that they transgresse such the Covenant is that they enter They do not enter one Covenant and transgresse another They transgresse a reall and not equivocall halfe-erring Covenant It is therefore a reall and not an equivocall halfe-erring Covenant that they enter And as this clearly follows from hence so that from you prosition that immediatly goes before it That Christs passive obedience and merit was only to satisfie for the violation of the Covenant of works but no at all for the violation of the Covenant of grace it clearly follows Universall Redemption overthown That there is no universall Redemption by Christs Death or satisfaction If Christ died not for satisfaction of their sin that stand guilty of the breach of the Covenant of grace then he died not for the sins of all This is clear But according to you he died not to make satisfaction for their sin that thus stand guilty Therefore he died not for the sins of all Yea it will follow that he dyed for the lesser part only of those that make profession of his name Seeing the greater part die in impenitency and unbelief Yea it will follow that he dyed for the Elect only For Faith and repentance are proper to the Elect All others

other he threats and these we expect or fear according as we answer in Covenant-keeping or fail through breach of it Herein I explained my self Chap. 5. pag. 21. and this sure was your mind when you wrote your Aphorismes where you say Faith and Repentance are Gods part that he will perform in one Covenant and made our conditions in another The bestowing of them then is no condition of God in that Covenant where they are conditions required from us You say in a Parenthesis if I understand you that our action of believing is called Gods condition by the Querist though improperly yet in a language very common in Mr. Bl's Treatise I desire instances to make this appear that it is thus common in my Treatise You say Thus much being premised I reply more particularly 1. I will yet say that God hath such an absolute promise as well as a conditionall till you give me be●ter reasons of your deniall or your questioning whether Scripture will bear it Answ It seems you perceive that I do not plainly deny it Arguments offered against an absolute Covenant I have reasons so far preponderating at least that I dare not assert it I shall adventure upon one that makes towards a denial Meer gracious predictions or prophecies de eventu what God will do are no absolute promises how generally soever so taken This I think is plain There is a difference betwixt a meer prediction and a promise or a prophecie de eventu what God will do and a promise But these that are generlly taken to be absolute promises are according to you meer gracious perdictions what God will do Aphor. pag. 9. Prophecies de eventu what God will do Append. pag. 44. Ergo. I shall adventure to second it with another Promises properly so called have some determinate object to whom they are made and who may receive consolation from them This appears Heb. 6.17 18. But in these absolute promises generally so called there is no determinate object to whom they are made or that possibly can receive consolation from them This is plain They are made as you say to the Elect and being made to them they are made as you further say to we know not who and so none can receive consolation from them No man can aforehand say as you observe that he shall have a new and soft heart because God hath promised it For he cannot know that it is promis'd to him Therefore these are no promises properly so called You adde I shall yet say that the giving of our faith and Repentance is the matter of that absolute promise Answ That it is the matter of that which you have called Gods prediction or prophecie de eventu what shall fall out and now do call an absolute promise I do easily grant And so according to your self it is not the matter of the conditionall proper Covenant of which we speak which is enough for me against you in the thing in question You further say my argument to the contrary hath little in it to compell you to a change Answ My argument it seems found you changed I cannot see you the same here as at least I thought I saw you in your Aphorisms Your Major say you is Whose acts they are his conditions they are In your reply you seem to grant it understood negatively but affirmatively you say the proposition holds not universally but put not in your exception But afterwards you put in an ●xc●ption as understood negatively Nor negatively do's it hold say you speaking de actione quâ est quid donandum Answ I think it holds nothing less then if there be quid agendum as well is quid dandum in case the action be matter of duty You say further to your Minor I could better answer if I could find it Expecting say you that it should have been this But our faith and Repentance are not Gods acts And observing that I say That this rises not to make them formally Gods acts and not ours leaving out all that to which the Relative This refers you know best for what reason Your Reader may suspect That it is to perswade that I deny which seems your great design here that God hath any hand in it I was censured before for giving too m●ch to the Spirit of God in the work of Sanctification when I would have the denomination to be given to him and not to man in that work And here I am brought in as ascribing nothing to Gods Spirit because I seem to say that Faith and Repentance are mans acts and not Gods Where you further except against me as over cautelous in speaking the two propositions copulatively It is enough you say to prove them Gods conditions and ours if they be Gods actions and ours Which will be I think a disproof if it be once made good of that which in your answer to your Querists you have said where you say That they are Gods part that he hath discovered that he will perform in one Covenant and they are made our conditions in another They are not then Gods conditions and ours in the same Covenant I am well enough content that you make them God's conditions and not ours in the improper unconditionate Covenant so that you will grant that they are our conditions and not Gods in the proper conditionate Covenant of which we now speak When I say that this rises not to make them formally Gods acts and not ours You say the word formally may do much to help me out And I say it is well that I have some help that way for I fear your great design here is to hedge me in or else you had not opposed me where my business is not to oppose but to defend you And here you come in with an objection to purpose It is hard to know whether your formally respect a natural or moral form Where we have Logick niceties enow But to let these pass I think no man but your self would have mentioned nature or morality here My meaning is only that formali modo loquendi they have their denomination from man and not from God You further observe that I say They are our acts c. God believes not c. Yielding that to believe is our act you object that to move us effectually to believe as a superior cause is not our work but Gods Answ Sure you do not think that ever I thought that the work of a superior cause above man is the work of man And you may plainly see that I speak as much in words that you leave out for God's more superior causality in this work as you do You say Let it be so to believe is our work and our condition It follows not that it is not Gods But me thinks this necessarily follows I never heard that in any bargain the condition of the one party was the condition of the other And your Reader will think that you have here much forgot

your self having in this very page said The condition is his that performeth it not his that imposeth it And I am sure that God imposeth and we perform the conditions of Faith and Repentance therefore they are not his conditions but ours You say There are sufficient reasons why God is said not to believe though he cause us to believe If you please to produce these reasons I shall he artily thank you I have said plainly enough that God causes us to believe den●'d that he is properly said to believe Your reasons then must needs be acceptable You tell me of Praedeterminants and their Adversaries Jesuites Arminians All of which acknowledge God to be the cause of u●●acts And I acknowledge the same and so far there is a ●aire and ●●i●ndly accord B●t you say I adventure a step farher and say that faith and repentance are mans work and not Gods To which y●u reply 1. What meane you then to yeeld afterward that God worketh all our works in us Those which he worketh are sure his work Answ What need you to aske that question when I there explaine mine own meaning Your ●r●u●ent à conjugatis What God worketh is his work must have its due limits or else you will run into many absurdities God works our motion from place to place and yet he himself does not move The text it self by me quoted gives an answer Having asserted that God works them the denomin●tion is still given to man God work● all our works in u● when he has wrought them they are yet said to be ours I freely subscribe to that of E●●ius upon the words Deus omne bonum ac totum ab initio bonae voluntatis usque ad consummationem boni operis in nobis effic●citer operatur ordine sc causalitatis You ●dde I never met with any Orthodox Divine but would yeeld that Faith is a work of Gods Spirit and the Spirits work is doubtle●s Gods work Farther telling me If you go the Common way of he Praedeterminants you must acknowledge that God is the Physicall Efficient Praede●ermining Principall Immediate cause of every act of every creature and therefore doubtlesse of our Faith and that both immediatione virtutis suppositi So that it is more properly his act then ours Here you furnish me with an answer Though in the highest way of Praedeterminants I should ascribe all in every act to God yet they are not Gods works or acts in a rigid proper sense but by a Metonymie of the cause He works them because he work us for the acting of them and so I explained my self We are his workmanship fitted and prepared for good works Christ was the principall efficient when he raised Lazarus yet it was Lazarus and not Christ that did rise Concerning acts of this nature that we are upon I believe that Quod voluntas agit liberè agit interim ex naturâ non est libera ad bonum sed per gratiam liberata libera in radice non in termino Homo denuò natus vult perficit quod est bonum Deus autem operatur velle perficere ordine sc causalitatis You professe your self of Bp. Davenants mind who saith As for the predetermination of mens wills it is a controversie between the Dominicans and Jesuits with whose Metaphysicall speculations our Protestant Divines love not to torture their brains or at least should not Declaring your self that you take it to be a poynt beyond the knowledge of any man which way God works on the will in these respects I much marvaile then that you will so much trouble your Reader about it You tell us that if you must incline to any way it would be rather to Durandus for stronger reasons then you find in Ludovicus à Dola who yet you say hath more then you have seen well answered And yet perhaps à Dola in case he had seen your arguments would have judged his as strong as yours Notwithstanding your great abilities to give answer to them when all others that you have seene have been wanting So farr as I have looked into the Author I see him a man of much modesty and one in whome reason is not wanting though I will not undertake to declare either with or against him When I say Our dexterity for holy duties is from the frame into which grace puts us and so still the work is ours though power for action is vouchsafed of God You reply Both velle and perficere are the gift of God and not only posse velle perficere To which I say I had thought that Power for action had included that wnich you say and not denyed it namely a powerfull inclination of the will to the work Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power Psal 110.3 The will is still mans when grace has wrought him up to it I had thought there had been no such danger in Paules words Phil. 4.13 I can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me You conclude that I have not confuted your answer namely to your Quaerists question when indeed I never intended it and if I would now go about it I need not finding it as I think done to my hand You give in your reason 1. That I have not disproved the absolute promise of the first speciall Grace Answ You say no more of this in your reply to your Querist that I can find but Whether the Apostle mention it as an absolute promise is a great doubt and that you think we may call it an absolute promise when you had said before that they are meer gratious predictions 2. These supposed promises as you say in your answer are not within the proper conditionall Covenant and therefore I had nothing to do with it 2. You further say that I have not disproved God to be the Author of our faith so as that it is his work Answ I do not find that in all your answer and you most unfairely make the title of this Section to be Whether Faith and Repentance are Gods works My businsse was against your Querist affirming them to be Gods conditions not ours 3. You say If I had yet Believing which is our work is not the same with giving faith or moving us to believe which is Gods work Answ This I confesse You did not affirme it before that I know and I yeeld it now The former is ours viz. to believe the latter Gods viz. to give Faith or move us to believe A mighty proofe sure that your answer is not confuted if it had been intended because I have gainsayed what your answer never asserted For that wich I intended not against you but as I thought for you That Faith and Repentance are our conditions and not Gods I thus further argue Arguments evincing that Faith and Repentance are our conditions and not Gods in the proper conditionall Covenant Those conditions that are not mentioned in the proper conditionall Covenant