respecting not only One or Some but All Commandments which is called a perfection of parts we might readily assent to it To which I Reply 1. Your terms are unâ—outh to me but I will do my best to guess at your meaning A perfection of the subject is perfectio essentialis vel accidentalis The former â—s no more but â—sse subjectum vere propriè The later may be variously taken according to the variety of accidents But certain I am that the subject is imperfect quod ad perfectionem accidentalem And therefore in this large expression you seem to say much more then I. You and I who are the subjects of Righteousness are imperfect though perfectly subjects 2. That which you call here perfectio subjecti is nothing but the truth of the immediate subject as I understand you Justitia est vel causae vel personae vel saltem considerata vel ut causae vel ut personae Causa est subjectum proximum Persons est subjectum primum principale Justitia causae est vel actionum vel habituum aut dispositionum Perfecti sunt habitus dispositiones actiones vel perfectione essentiali Transcendentali ita perfecti sunt quia vere sunt verè sunt tales vel perfectione accidentali ita aliquo modo perfecti alio imperfecti sunt It seems therefore that you here say as much at least as I for the perfection of the matter of our inherent Righteousness if not more for I am sure you speak more unlimitedly 3. I do charitably conjecture that when you speak of a perfection of the object you do not mean as you speak but you mean a perfection of our Acts as they respect the object extensively for whether you include or exclude intension I know not Here must I distinguish between objects of absolute necessity and so of the acts about those objects which a man cannot be justified or saved without and 2. Objects of less necessity and so acts which its possible to be justified and saved without In regard of the former I confess our acts may be said to be Truly acts that are exercised about such objects if you will call that perfection as in a larger sense you may But as to the later I acknowledge no such perfection And therefore for that which you call A perfection of parts I acknowledge that every righteous man hath a perfection of the essential parts that is he wants them not but not of the integral alwaies much less of accidents which are improperly called parts Next you repeat some of my words and then adde All which as it is here held out is new to me and I must confess my self in ignorance all over Reply I cannot help that but I will do towards it what I can that it may be none of my fault and therefore will let you know my meaning And in opening the sense and nature of Perfection I cannot give you more of my minde in a narrow room then Schibler hath laid down in Metaph. l. 1. c. 11. Perfectum est cui ad essentiam nihil deest Scaliger Exercit. 140. p. 470. Omne quod est sibi est bonum totum perfectum It is a Metaphisical Transcendental Perfection that I speak of which hath no contrary in Being which consisteth in the presence of all things necessary to Being and that only of an inferiour derived Being such as the creature is for we meddle not with the infinite Divine Being or perfection Nor do we take it in a comparative sense but in an absolute this being a Righteousness perfect in its kinde though a more perfect kinde accidentally may be found out I take it rather nominaliter then participaliter but still remember that I take it not de perfectione accidentali sed essentiali And therefore I still maintain that in several accidental respects our Righteousness is imperfect Now to know how our Righteousness is essentially perfect let us consider what is essential to it It s form is a Relation of our actions and dispositions immediatly and our selves remotely as compared with the Law or Rule This Law besides the constitution of the reward and punishment considered in themselves of which we now speak not doth 1. Constitute I mean efficiently determine what shall be our duty in general 2. It determineth more specially what part of this duty shall be the condition of our Justification and salvation sine qua non When we come to be judged at Gods barre he that hath performed the condition shall be justified though he have omitted much of the other duty but all that have not performed the condition shall be condemned But remember of what it is that this is the condition viz. of the new Law of grace whose office is to make over to us Free remission of sins and salvation through the satisfaction and merits of Christ and not the condition of that Law which gives the reward directly for the work Take up altogether then and you will see that 1. Righteousness is formally a relation 2. And that not of our Actions or dispositions to the meer precept of the Law determining of duty as such commonly called the moral Law but 1. to the Law as determining of the condition of life or death 2. to the promise and threatning of that Law which are joyned to the condition So that to be righteous signifieth quoad legem novam these two things 1. Non obligatus ad paenam cui debetur praemium 2. Qui conditionem impunitatis praemii praestitit The first question in judgement being An sit obligatus ad paenam vel non an praemium sit debitum therefore the former is our first and principal righteousness and here to be pleaded But before the first question can be determined the second must be raised and resolved Utrum praestitit conditionem And here the second is our Righteousness conditionis praestatio by which we must answer the accusation Conditionem non praestitit That is He lived and died an unbeliever or impenitent So that 3. You see that our first Righteousness Non reatus paenae vel jus ad impunitatem ad praemium as it requireth Christs perfect satisfaction as a medium to it by which all the charge of the Law of works must be answered so it requires our performance of the condition of the Law of grace as another medium by which Christ and his benefits are made ours and by which the false accusation of being unbelievers and impenitent and so to be condemned by the Law of grace it self as having no part in Christ must be answered and we justified against it 4. It is not only the form of our righteousness that is transcendenter perfect but also the matter as such as it is the matter that is the subject actions and dispositions are subjects truly capable of that relation All this is no more but that it is a true Righteousness and not
the word Righteousness materially without relation to any Rule is as much as to say We may denominate a materia sine forma The form is relative If you mean We may denominate that which hath a form from the matter and not from the form then I Reply 1. Then you must not denominate properly and logically 2. And then you must not call it Righteousness except you mean ludere aequivocis and speak de Justitia particulari ethica qua suum cuique tribuimus when we are speaking de Justitia Legali Civili Forensi called by the Schoolmen Justitia universalis in our case I am not of the Papists minde that make our Righteousness to be our new qualities and confound Justitiam Sanctitatem inde Justificationem Sanctificationem §. 31. Mr Bl. ANd in such consideration I do not know how there can be perfection or imperfection either in holiness or righteousness It is as they come up to or fall short of the Rule that they have the denomination of perfection or imperfection §. 31. R.B. 1. AT the first view the first sentence seemed so strange to me that I thought it meetest to say nothing because it is scarce capable of any apt answer but what will seem sharp or unmannerly For that which you say you may consider is something or nothing If something and yet not capable of perfection or imperfection it is such a something as the world never knew till now But upon second thoughts I finde that de justitia your words may be born For it is nothing that you speak of Legal Righteousness not related to the Law or Rule is Nothing And Nothing cannot be more perfect or less nisi negativè But that holiness taken for spiritual habits and acts can have neither perfection or imperfection or that they are capable of no perfection or imperfection in any other sense but as related nor yet in any Relations to God or the person dedicating save only in the relation to the Rule all these for the first reason shall have no answer but a recital §. 32. Mr Bl. PAul's Gospel frame whether you will call it righteousness or holiness is set out I am sure Rom. 7. full of imperfection yet all this as in reference to the Rule as is answered or fell short in conformity to it vers 22. I delight in the Law of God after the inner man §. 32. R. B. 1. IS not Righteousness or Holiness as Scriptural as Logical as plain a term and as fit for Disputants as Gospel-frame Till I know whether by Gospel-frame you mean Habits Acts Relations and what Relations or what else I shall pass it as uncapable of a better Reply 2. Did not I acknowledge expresly as much imperfection as you here affirm of Paul â—s frame Why then do you intimate by your arguing as if I did not 3. There is a twofold Rule or action of the Law which our Habits and Actions do respect as I have oft said The first is the Precept determining of Duty simply This all our Actions and Habits come short of and therefore no man hath a Righteousness consisting in this conformity The second is the promise or that act going along with the promise whereby God determineth of the condition This is twofold One of the Law of Nature and Works and according to this no man is Righteous for the condition and the duty are of the same extent it being obedience gradually perfect that is here the condition The other is of the Law of Grace which determineth what shall be the condition of our Right to Christ and Life Paul never complaineth of an imperfection of Essence of this last It is of the former that he speaks These necessary things should not be hidden by confounding the several Rules or Offices of Gods Law which so apparently differ §. 33. Mr Bl. ANd whereas a charge of ignorance is laid even upon learned Teachers that commonly understand the word Righteousness and Righteous as it refers to the old Rule I profess my self to have little of their Learning but I am wholly theirs in this ignorance I know no other Rule but the old Rule the Rule of the Moral Law that iâ— with me a Rule a perfect Rule and the only Rule §. 33. R B. EIther I am an incompetent judge through partiality or else you had done but the part of a friend yea of a candid adversary to have taken in the rest of my words which must make up the sense which were these As if the godly were called Righteous besides their imputed righteousness only because their sanctification and good works have some imperfect agreement to the Law of works I pray let the word only be remembred 2. It is but in this one point that I charge them with Ignorance And who is not ignorant in more points then one If it be so proud and arrogant a speech as some other Brethren have affirmed it to be then every man is proud and arrogant that differs from another and disputeth the difference For I cannot differ from any man unless I suppose him to Erre And doubtless every man is so farre Ignorant as he Erreth Must I then differ from none yea from no Learned Divines Why then when one affirmeth and another denieth I must be of both sides for fear of censuring one side as Ignorant or Erroneous 3. I confess I was not well acquainted with the genius of many of my Reverend and truly Honoured Brethren I thought that no godly man would have taken himself wronged if a man told him he had Error no more then to tell him he had sin I took it for granted that humanum est errare and that we know but in part and that sanctifying grace had so farre destroyed pride and made the soul apprehensive of its imperfection that at least men of eminent godliness could have endured patiently to hear that they are not omniscient nor infallible and that they have some ignorance with their eminent knowledge and why not in this point as well as another If any think that I arrogate that knowledge to my self which I deny to them I reply So I do in every case wherein I differ from any man living For if I thought not my judgement right it were not indeed my judgement and if I thought not his opinion wrong I did not differ from him But if they will affirm that therefore I do either vilifie them or prefer my self in other things I hope they will bring better proof of their affirmation For my own part I unfeignedly profess my self conscious of much more ignorance then ever I charged on any of my Brethren in the Ministry yea I must profess my self ignorant in a very great part of those Controversies which are most commonly and confidently determined by my Brethren I speak not all this as to Mr Bl. but to other Brethren that have made so strange an exposition of this one word and of one more
their own conditions I think the solidity and great necessity of all these distinctions is beyond Dispute These things being thus 1. What confusion is it to talk of the moral Law being the only Rule when it is not one thing that is called the moral Law and who knows what you mean 2. How strange a thing is it to my ears that you even you should so wholly own this and so heartily profess that you take the Moral Law for the only Rule For suppose you take it for the preceptive part of the Law of nature only as I think you do 1. That is but part of that very Law of nature Doth not the Law of nature as well as the positive Law determine de Debito paenae as well as de Debito officii and is a Rule of punishment as well as duty 2. Or if you took it for the whole Law of nature is that the only Rule 1. What say you for matter of duty to the positive Precepts of the Gospel of Baptism the Lords Supper the Lords day the Officers and Government of the Church c. Is the Law of nature the only Rule for these If you say They are reducible to the second Commandment I demand 1. What is the second Commandment for the Affirmative part but a general precept to worship God according to his Positive Institution And doth this alone suffice Doth it not plainly imply that there are and must be positive Laws instituting a way of worship 2. Do you take the Precept de genere to be equivalent to the Precepts de speciebus or to be a sufficient Rule without them If the Moral Law or Law of Nature be to you the only Rule and a perfect Rule then you need no other And if God had only written the ten Commandments or only said in general Thou shalt worship God according to his positive Institutions would it have been your duty to have Baptized administred the Lords Supper c. Doth the general Precept constitute this particular Ordinance as my duty If not as nothing more certain then the general Law is not the only Rule nor sufficient in omni parte though sufficient in suo genere ad partem propriam for the constitution of Worship Ordinances Church Offices c. or acquainting us with our duty therein Moreover did Christ in Instituting these Ordinances and Officers do any more then was done before or not If no more 1. It is superfluous 2. Shew where it was done before 3. Sure the fourth Commandment did not at once command both the seventh day of the week and the first If more then the former was not sufficient nor is now the only Rule Moreover doth not the Scripture call Christ a Lawgiver and say The Law shall go out of Zion c. Isa 2.3 And is he not the Anointed King of the Church and therefore hath Legislative power And will he not use the principal part of his Prerogative 2. I think the Moral Law taken either for the Law given to Adam or written in Tables of stone is not a sufficient Rule to us now for beleeving in Jesus Christ no nor the same Law of nature as still in force under Christ For a general command of beleeving all that God revea◠〈◊〉 is not the only Rule of our faith but the particular revelation and precept are part And a general command to submit to what way God shall prescribe for our justification and salvation is not the only Rule but that particular prescript is part And a general command of receiving every offered benefit is not the only or sufficient Rule for receiving Christ without the Gospel-offer of him and his benefits 3. And I suppose you grant that as mans soul hath an understanding and a will the former being a passage to the later in the former practical receptions being but initiate and imperfect and in the later perfected so Laws have their prefaces declaring the grounds and occasions of them oft times and so the Laws of God have their Narratives Histories and Doctrines concerning the grounds the subject the occasion c. as well as the more essential parts viz. Precepts and Sanction These I spoke not of before in the distinctions Now do you indeed think that the Law of nature or what ever you now mean by the old Rule and Moral Law is the sufficient and only Rule of Knowledge Judgement and Faith I take it for granted that you will acknowledge the assenting act of faith to be in the understanding and that the Word of God is the rule of this assent Had you in the old Rule or Moral Law a sufficient and only Rule for your faith in the Article of Christs Incarnation Birth Life Innocency Miracles Death Burial Resurrection Assension full Dominion in his humane nature c. Was this Article in the Creed before Christs coming Except ye beleeve that I am he ye shall die in your sinnes Besides matter of faith is also matter of duty for it is our duty to beleeve all these Truths But I think it was then no mans duty to believe that this Jesus the son of Mary was the Saviour before he was Incarnate or to believe that Christ was Dead Ascended c. Therefore that which you call the Old Rule is not as you say the Only Rule of our Duty in Beleeving 4. But what if all this had been left out and you had proved the Moral Law the only Rule of duty doth it follow that therefore it is the only Rule Sure it is not the only Rule of rewarding For if you take the Moral Law for the meer preceptive part of the Law of nature then it is no Rule at all of rewarding for it is the promise and not the precept that doth make due the reward And if you take the moral Law for the whole Law of nature it is a very great Dispute whether it be Regula pramiandi at all much more as to that great reward which is now given in the Law of grace by Christ your self deny it pag. 74. I dare not say that if we had perfectly obeyed Everlasting Glory in Heaven had been naturally our due And for Remission of sin and the Justification of a sinner and such like they are such mercies as I never heard the Law of nature made the only Rule of our right to them 5. The same I may say of the Rule of punishment The privation of a purchased offered Remission and Salvation is one part of the penalty of the new Law of which the Moral Law can scarce be said the only Rule None of them that were bidden shall taste of the Supper 6. But the principal thing that I intend is that the Moral Law is not the only Rule what shall be the condition of Life or Death and therefore not the only Rule according to which we must now be denominated and hereafter sentenced Just or Unjust For if the accuser say He hath not performed
to us it is strictly taken nor had I used the term Condition as to God but as it was necessary to satisfie the Objector who so called it intimating the improprietie of it Also I did plainly shew that the thing called Gods Condition was not precisely the same with that called ours Ours was Believing and Repenting Gods is the bestowing of these as the Question expressed or the giving us new and soft hearts that we may do it our selves and do it readily and willingly c. as I expressed pag. 46. because I was not willing to meddle affirmatively or negatively with the question of Gods immediate Physical Efficiencie of our own act yet I doubt not but God doth truly powerfully and effectually to the removing or overcoming all resistance move the Soul to the act it self and therefore it may truly be said that not only Gods own Action but also our action of Believing is the thing promised called his Condition by the Querist and though improperly yet in a language very common in Mr. Blakes Treatise This much being premised I Reply more particularly 1. I will yet say that God hath such an absolute Promise as well as a Conditional till you give me better Reasons of your denyal or your Questioning whether Scripture will bear it And I shall yet say that the giving of our Faith and Repentance is the matter of that absolute promise For your Argument to the contrarie hath little in it to compell me to a change Your Maior is Whose acts they are his conditions they are instead of proof you say This is evident I Reply 1. Negatively it had been evident de Actione qua talis that it is no ones Condition but his that performs it as the condition is said to be his that performeth and not his that imposeth it But Affirmatively the proposition holds not universally Nor Negatively speaking de Actione qua est quid donandum To your Minor I could better answer if I could have found it I expected it should have been this But our Faith and Repentance are not Gods acts But I know not whether I may be so bold as say you will own that Before you say This rises not to make them formally Gods acts and not ours where 1. you cautelously speak the two Propositions copulatively and 2. you put in the word formally which may do much to help you out For the former it is enough according to your own Rule to prove them Gods Conditions and ours if they be Gods Actions and ours for you say Whose actions they are his Conditions they are that is evident It is not therefore necessary that I prove them Gods and not ours 2. It is hard to know whether your formally respect a natural or moral form If the former action is the form it self it is harder to finde out its matter Accidents have not properly matter and form but the subject is called its matter but Action hath scarce so proper a subject as other Accidents have seeing it is rather Agentis then in agente inhaesivè Of transients it s beyond doubt and I think so of Immanents unles we may with Scotus take them for Qualities If you speak of Moral formality were it sinful Action I should deny God to be the Author but of Faith and Repentance I dare not do so I think God is the Author of them formally as well as materially But in your following words you say But they are our acts c. God believes not c. Reply 1. To believe is our act but to give us Faith or to move us effectually to Believe as a superior Cause this is not our work but Gods 2. Let it be so to believe is our work and our condition It follows not that it is not Gods 3. There are sufficient reasons why God is not said to Believe though he cause us to believe If you go on the Predeterminants grounds I suppose you know their reasons who take notice of the Armenians making this objection If you enquire of the Jesuits and Arminians that go the way of determined concourse or of partial Causality they think they have yet more to say of which I suppose you not ignorant Durandus his followers think they have most of all to say both why God should be said to believe and why he is not the Author of our sin in that they suppose that he causeth not the act immediately And yet all these acknowledge God to be the cause of our acts But you adventure a step further and say Faith and Repentance are mans works not Gods Works Reply 1. What mean you then to yield afterward that God worketh all our works in us those which he worketh are sure his works And that It is God that worketh in us the Will and the Deed. 2. I never met with any orthodox Divine but would yield that Faith is a work of Gods Spirit And the Spirits work is doubtless Gods work 3. If you go the common way of the Predeterminants you must acknowldge that God is the Physical Efficient Predetermining Principal Immediate cause of every act of every creature and therefore doubtless of our Faith and that both Immediatione Virtutis Suppositi so that it is more properly his act then ours For my part I confess my self of Bishop Davenants minde who saith against Hoard p. 116 As for the predetermination of mens Wills it is a Controversie between the Dominicans and Jesuites with whose Metaphysical speculations our Protestant Divines love not to torture their brains Or at leâ—t they should not I take it to be a point beyond the knowledge of any man which way Gods works on the Will in these respects Though if I must encline to any one way it would be rather to Durandus for stronger reasons then I finde in Ludov. à Dola who yet hath more then I have seen well answered and lest of all to the Predeterminants for all the numerous arguments of the Dominicans and the seeming strength that Dr. Twisse Heerebâ—ord Rutherford and others of our own do adde to their cause But yet I am far from denying our Faith and Repentance to be Gods Works for I doubt not but he causeth them ut causa Vniversalis by his general Providence as they are natural Actions and also by his special effectual Grace contra omnem Resistentiam infallibly causeth them as they are the special gifts of the Spirit So that I marvail that you should say they are not Gods Works In the conclusion you adde Our dexteritie in holy duties is from the frame into which Grace puts us so still the work is ours though power for action is vouchsafed of God Reply Both Velle Perficere is the gift of God and not only Posse Velle perficere Why should I trouble the Reader to say any more to that point when Dr. Twisse and others against the Remonstrants have said so much and Austin so much before them all And yet I never