I suppose you wrong them by making them righter then they are For the very passages which you before expressed out of some of the chief of their writers do intimate that they do not indeed take the Covenant or Law it self to command true Perfection but that which they call Perfection is but as you say No other then the Grace of Sanctification in the very sense as the Orthodox hold it out But it is true perfection that those mean whom you now write against So that I see not the least ground for this first charge §. 84. Mr. Bl. 2. IF this opinion stand then God Accepts of Covenant-breakers of those that deal falsly in it whereas Scripture charges it upon the wicked those of whom God complains as Rebellious Deut. 29.25 Josh 7.15 Jer. 11.10 and 22.8.9 Yea it may be charged upon the best the most holy in the world lying under the guilt of it §. 84. R. B. THis charge proceedeth meerly from the confounding of the Duty as such and the Condition as such A Covenant which is also a Law as well as a Covenant may by the preceptive part Constitute much more Duty then shall be made the Condition of the Promises Properly it is only the non-performance of the Condition that is Covenant-breaking and so the Divines whom you oppose are not chargeable with your Consequent For they say not that The Covenant of Grace doth make perfect Obedience the Condition of its Promise and Accept Imperfect That were a flat contradiction for the Condition is Causa sine qua non cum quâ But only they say It Requireth or Commandeth perfect obedience and Accepteth imperfect And if you will speak so largely as to say that all who break the preceptive part of the Covenant are Covenant-breakers then no doubt but God Accepteth of many such and of none but such And as the word Covenant is not taken for the mutual contract but for Gods new Law called his Covenant his Testament his Disposition Constitution Ordination c. so no doubt we all are Covenant-breakers For whether we say that the new Law commandeth perfect obedience or not yet unless you take it exceeding restrainedly it must be acknowledged that the Precept is of larger extent then the Condition having appointed some Duties which it hath not made sine qua non to salvation If you send your childe a mile of an errand and say I charge you play not by the way but make haste and do not go in the dirt c. and if you come back by such an houre I will give you such a Reward if not you shall be whipt He that playes by the way and dirties himself and yet comes back by the hour appointed doth break the preceptive part but not the condition Or if you suppose a re-engagement by Promise to do both these he breaketh his own Covenant in the first respect which was not the condition of Reward or Punishment but not in the second And so do true Christians both break the preceptive part of the Covenant and also some of their own particular covenants with God as when a man promiseth I will commit this sin no more or I will perform such a duty such a day But these are not the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace which God hath made the Causa sine qua non of Justification or Salvation So that I conceive this charge unjust to say no more §. 85. Mr. Bl. 3. THen it will follow that as none can say that they have so answered the Command of the Law that they have never failed they have not if put to answer in the greatest rigor once transgressed so neither can they with the Church make appeal to God That they have not dealt falsly in the Covenant nor wickedly departed from their God Psal 44.17 Every sin according to this opinion being a breach of it and a dealing falsly in it §. 85. R. B. THis charge is as unjust as the former and the absurdity supposed to follow doth not but is supposed so to do upon the forementioned confusion of two acts of the Covenant or New Law the one Determining what shall be mans Duty the other what shall be Conditio sine qua non of Justification and Salvation § 86. Mr. Bl. 4. THen the great Promise of mercy from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him and his Righteousness â—nto childrens children to such as keep his Covenant and to those that remember his Commandements to do them Psal 103.17 18. only appertains to those that so keep the Law that they sin not at all against it §. 86. R. B. IT follows not If they sincerely keep the Law they fulfill the Conditions of the Covenant though not the Precept And they keep the Precept in an improper but usual sense as Keeping is taken for such a less degree of breaking as on Gospel grounds is Accepted This still runs upon the foresaid Confusion §. 87. Mr. Bl. 5. THen our Baptism-Vow is never to sin against God and as often as we renew our Covenant we do not only humble our selves that we have sinned but we afresh binde our selves never more to admit the least infirmity and so live and dye in the breach of it §. 87. R. B. WE do not promise in Baptism to do all that the Precept of the Covenant requireth but all that is made the Condition of Life and to Endeavor the rest Much less as the Covenant is taken in the largest sense as those seem to do whom you oppose may it be said that we promise to keep all its Precepts §. 88. Mr. Bl. 6. THen the distinction between those that entred Covenant and brake it as Jer. 31 32 33. and those that have the Law written in their hearts and put into their inward parts to observe it falls all standing equally Guilty of the breach of it no help of Grace being of power to enable to keep Covenant §. 88. R. B. WHen sincere obedience and perfect obedience are all one and when the Precept and the Condition of the Covenant are proved to be of equal extent then there will be ground for the charging of this Consequence In the first Covenant of Nature the Precept and the Condition were of equal extent for perfect obedience was the Condition but it is not so in the Covenant of Grace §. 89. Mr. Bl. 7. THen it follows that sinceritie is never called for as a Duty or required as a Grace but only dispensed with as a failing indulged as a want It is not so much a Christians honor or Character as his blemish or failing rather his defect then praise But we finde the contrary in Noah Job Asa Hezekiah Zachary and Elizabeth Nathaniel an Israelite indeed that entred Covenant and kept Covenant §. 89. R. B. I Will not say it is past the wit of man to finde the Ground of this charge i. e. to see how this should follow but I dare say it is past
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
Or do you mean that in the Institution God gives you the materials and you form it your selves If so why blamed you mine which is of mans forming but yet as you suppose the materials so far of God that the conclusion is de fide To give you the materials of a Syllogism is not to give you a Syllogism for the form denominates I must therefore suppose a Believer yet to be upon the frame of one as you speak For I take you to be a Believer and I finde you here at it very seriously 2. I confess though I have no minde to quarrel with your Syllogism that I am never the better for the substitution of this in the room of the humane one I know not the meaning of the first word but I will not stand on that as being I know but a verbal slip I do not apprehend what use there can be for this Syllogism in this business 1. It is supposed that every Christian knows that Christ and Remission are given together and when they know it what use for syllogizing towards the explication of the use of that Seal 2. Nay doth not your arguing intimate that the believer is more assured that Christ is given to him then that pardon is given him Or else if the former were not quid notius how could it be a fit medium you suppose his doubt to be of pardon and salvation and the former brought to prove that whereas I think few doubt of one but they doubt of the other and I think the Sacrament sealeth the gift of Christ as well as of pardon as you confess I see not but you might have laid down as conveniently in this one proposition all that you say is sealed I give thee Christ and Justification and Salvation But this is of small moment §. 64. Mr. Bl. THe major here is not sealed for the Sacraments seal to the truth of no general Propositions but they seal with application to particular persons to whom the Elements are dispensed as Protestant Writers have defended against Papists and put into the difinition of a Sacrament it seals then that which supplies the place of the minor in this tender which is Gods gift of Christ In the Sacrament Christ saith This is my body he saith this is my blood and this is said to all that communicate Now whether this gift of the body and blood of Christ be Absolutely or Conditionally sealed will be easily resolved The outward Elements are given on this condition that we receive them that we eate and drink them We have not Christ Sacramentally till we have taken and eaten and drunk the Elements We have not Christ in the Sacrament before our Souls hâ—ld fâ—â—th that which answers to this eating and drinking That which all do not partake of that receive the Sacrament is not Absolutely but Conditionally sealed in the Sacrament None can miss of that which God absolutely grants and absolutely sealeth But all do not partake of Christ in the Sacrament therefore he is not Absolutely but Conditionally sealed in the Sacrament §. 64. R. B. 1. COnfusion maketh Controversies endless and gives advantage to mistakes to prevail with the weak Reader I shall first tell you what I mean by sealing before we further dispute what is sealed and how Some sober men no way inclined to Anabaptism do think that we ought not to call the Sacraments Seals as being a thing not to be proved from the word for all Rom. 4. But I am not of their minde Yet I think it is a Metaphore and to make it the subject of tedious disputations and lay too great stress upon a Metaphorical notion is the way not to edifie but to lose our selves I am not so well skilled in Law as to be very confident or to pretend to any great exactness in â—hese matters but I conceive that in general a Seal is an Appropriative sign when it is set upon things as Goods Cattels c. it signifies them to be ours when they are applyed to Instruments in writing they have 1. the common end of a Seal 2. a special end 1. The common end is to signifie by a special sign our owning of that writing or Instrument to which it is annexed 2. The special end is according to the nature and use of the Instruments viz. 1. Some Instruments directed to a Communitie or indefinitly to any whom it may concern 2. Some to particular persons or some few Individuals Both of them are 1. either Narratives de re 2. Or obligatory Constitutions or acknowledgments de Debito The former are either 1. Doctrinal and so a man may give it under his hand and seal that he owns such or such a Doctrine or confession of Faith or form prescribed by him as Teacher to his Schollers or Hearers c. 2. Or Historical and so a man may give it under his hand and Seal that such a person is thus or thus qualified or did this or that act or suffered losses pain c. 2. The Constitutions de Debito are 1. De Debito officii the Constitution of Dutie 1. By equals upon voluntary obligation by contract which concerneth not our business 2. By Superiors to their Subjects or Inferiors which is either a Law to any or to some Communitie Or else a Precept to some particulars And so Soveraigns may give out Laws and Proclamations under their hand and Seal and Justices and Inferior Magistrates may seal their Precepts and Warrants and Orders c. 2. Or they are de Debito Beneficii Constituted 1. by a Legislator or Rector as such 2. by a Proprietary or Owner or Lord as such 1. The former is either Absolute as the Collation of some honors may be and some acts of pardon and the Divisions of Inheritances as among the Israelites at their first possessing Canaan Or they are Conditional And the Condition is either pure Acceptance which is so naturally requisite that it is usually supposed and not expressed and such Collations go commonly under the name of Absolute and Pure Donations though indeed they are not Or else some requite service or moral action which may properly make the Benefit to be Praemium a Reward All these being sealed the Seal doth oblige the Benefactor or Donor because the Instrument is obligatory if it be for future conveyance If a present Collation then the Seal doth confirm the Receivers Right against any that may hereafter question it The like may be said of Acknowledgments as of Constitutions The Subject may acknowledge his subjection and Seal it the Stipulator may cause the Promisor to acknowledge Duty or Debt and to Seal it So for Acknowledgments of Debts discharged Rewards received Conditions performed c. 3. The like may be said de Debito Panae when Penal Laws are sealed and of Commissions and Warrants for execution but this less concerns our case So that the use of a Seal as such is but to testifie in a special manner that
pag. 51. Vulgar Divines as that they can thence conclude and publish me a slighter and contemner of my Brethren As if they that know England could be ignorant that the Churches among us have many such guides as may well be called Vulgar Divines Take them by number and judge in those Counties that I am acquainted in whether the greater number be of the Profound or Subtill or Angelical or Seraphical or Irrefragable sort of Doctors or equal to some of these Reverend Excepters whose worth I confess so far beyond my measure that had I spoke of them as Vulgar Divines they might well have been offended But O that it were not true that there are such through most of England Wales and Ireland if any on condition I were bound to Recant at every Market Cross in England with a fagot on my back so be it there were the same number of such choice men as some of these my offended Brethren are in their stead And then who knows not that the Vulgar or ordinary weaker Teachers do take up that opinion which is most in credit and which is delivered by the most Learned Doctors whom they most reverence So that the summe of my speech can be no worse then this It is the most common opinion which is all one as to say It is the opinion of the Vulgar Divines and some of the Learned the other part of the Learned going the other way which is it that men censure for such an approbrious injurious speech Yet I will not wholly excuse it nor this that Mr Bl. toucheth upon I confess it was spoken too carelesly unmannerly harshly and I should better have considered how it might be taken As for Mr Blake's profession That he hath little of their Learning but is wholly theirs in this ignorance I did still think otherwise of him and durst not so have described him but yet my acquaintance with him is not so great as that I should pretend to know him better then he knows himself and I dare not judge but that he speaks as he thinks Let me be bold to shew him part of that which he saith he is wholly ignorant of That our personal inherent Righteousness is not denominated from the old Law or Covenant as if we were called Righteous besides our imputed Righteousness only because our sanctification and good works have some imperfect agreement to the Law of Works I prove thus 1. If no man be called Righteous by the Law of Works but he that perfectly obeyeth so as never to sin then no imperfect obeyer is called Righteous nisi aequivocè by that Law But the Antecedent is true Therefore so is the consequent 2. If the Law of Works do curse and condemn all men then it doth not judge them Righteous nisi aequivocè But it doth curse and condemn all men Therefore c. 3. If the Law of Works do judge us Righteous for our works taking righteous properly and not equivocally then we must be justified by our works according to that Law Lex n. est norma judicii omnis verè justus est justificandus Justificatio Legis est virtualiter justificatio judicis He that condemneth the Just is an abomination to God But we must not by the Law of Works be justified by our works Therefore c. 4. He that is guilty of the breach of all Gods Laws is not denominated Righteous nisi aequivocè by that Law But we break all Gods Laws Therefore Yea he that offendeth in one is guilty of all Reade Brochmond in Jac. 2.10 and Jacob. Laurentius and Paulus Burgensis in Lyra on the same Text. Vid. Placaeum in Thesib Salmuriens Vol. 1. pag. 29. § 13 c. Wotton de Reconcil Part. 2. l. 1. c. 5. n. 16. Twiss Vindic. Grat. li. 2. part 1. c. 15. pag. vol. minore 214. col 2. See whether yours or mine be the Protestants doctrine Here if ever its true that Bonum est ex causis integris 5. If imperfect works are all sinnes or sinfull then they are not our Righteousness according to the Law of works For it justifieth no man for his sins But the former is true Therefore the later I doubt not but you know the state of the Controversie on this point between us and the Papists 6. If the Law of works do denominate a man righteous for imperfect works which truly and properly are but a less degree of unrighteousness then it seems that all wicked men if not the damned are legally righteous For they committed not every act of sin that was forbidden them and therefore are not unrighteous in the utmost possible degree And the Law of works doth not call one degree of obedience Righteousness more then another except it be perfect But certainly all the wicked are not Legally Righteous nisi aequivocè Therefore c. 7. If our Faith Repentance and sincere Obedience may be must be and is called our Righteousness as it is the performance of the conditions of the new Covenant or Law of Grace then at least not only as they have an imperfect agreement with the Law of Works But the antecedent is true Therefore the consequent Let us next peruse Mr. Blake's Reasons why He is wholly theirs in this ignorance He saith I know no other Rule but the old Rule the Rule of the morall Law that is with me a Rule a perfect Rule and the only Rule Rep. Sed distinguendum est The morall Law is taken either for the entire Law of works consisting of Precept and Sanction and that either as it is the meer Law of nature or as containing also what to Adam was superadded or else it is taken only for the meer preceptive part of a Law which is not the whole Law In the later sense it is taken 1. For the preceptive part of the Law given to Adam 2. For the preceptive part of the Law of nature redelivered by Moses 3. For the preceptive part of the Law of nature now used by Christ the Mediator as part of his own Law 2. We must distinguish of a Rule 1. There is the Rule of obedience or what shall be due from us This is the precept under which I comprehend the prohibition it being but praeceptuâ—â— non agendis 2. There is the Rule of reward determining what shall be due to us This is the conditional promise or gift so far forth as it determineth de ipso praemio 3. There is the Rule of punishment determining what shall be due to man upon his sin This is the threatning 4. There is the Rule of the condition of the reward or punishment and of judging to whom they do belong determining on what conditions or terms on their parts men shall be saved or else damned though the same acts were before commanded in the precept as they are duties yet to constitute them conditions of the promise is a further thing This is the promise and threatning as they are conditional or as they constitute
absolute obligation already But it is Gods Covenant act that we are enquiring after In what sense is that called Outward 1. It cannot be as if God did as the dissembling creature ore tenus with the mouth only covenant with them and not with the heart as they deal with him 2. I know therefore no possible sense but this that it is called Outward from the Blessings promised which are outward Here therefore 1. I should have thought it but reasonable for Mr. Bl. to have told us what those outward Blessings are that this Covenant promiseth 2. That he would have proved out of Scripture that God hath such a Covenant distinct from the Covenant of Grace which promiseth Justification and Salvation and having other Conditions on our part For both these I cannot finde what outward blessings he means but Church Ordinances and Priviledges These consist in the Word Sacraments Prayer Discipline For the Word God oft bestoweth it on Infidels and in England there are men that deride the truth of Scripture and esteem it a fiction and yet for credit of men come ordinarily to the Congregation These have the Word given them and so have other unregenerate men but not by Covenant that I know of Even the godly have no Covenant assuring them that for the future they shall enjoy the Word further then it is in their hearts except that promise with a reserve If God see it Good c. Where hath God said If thou wilt with thy mouth profess to believe I will give thee my Word preached 2. For Baptism It is part of our profession it self And though God hath commissioned us to Baptize such professours and their seed yet that is not a Covenant with them Nor do I know where God saith I will give thee Baptism if thou wilt but say thou believest or if thou wilt profess seriously a half faith More shall be said against this anon 3. For the Lords Supper the same may be said God hath no where made a Covenant that they shall have the Lords Supper that will profess faith To feign God to make a Covenant with man whose condition shall be orall profession and whose Blessing promised is only the nudum signum a little water to wash men and a little bread and wine without that Christ and Remission of sin Mortification and Spiritual Life which these Sacraments are in their Institution appointed to signifie seal and exhibit this is I think a groundless and presumptuous course 4. The same may be said of Discipline which alas few Churches do enjoy I desire therefore that those words of Scripture may be produced where any such outward Covenant is contained I take outward Ordinances and other blessings to be a second part of or certain appurtenances to the blessings of the great Covenant of Grace and given by Covenant on the same condition of true faith as Justification it self is but allowed or given by Providence where and when God pleaseth and sometime to Infidels that never made profession as to some of them the Word and temporal mercies and not assured by promise to any ungodly man that from Providence receiveth them At last after this necessary explication I come to Mr. Bl's words which I propounded to Reply to And first when he saith A dogmatical faith entitleth to Baptism I reply 1. A meer Dogmatical Historical faith is only in the understanding and that not Practical neither Now if this be the condition of the outward Covenant then it may consist with a Renouncing Christ and open disclaiming him yea a persecuting the very Christian name For a man may speculatively and sleightly believe the word of God to be true and yet may openly profess I love the world and my pleasure and honour so much better then Christ that I am resolved I will be no Christian nor be baptized nor take Christ on the terms that he is offered on At least he that professeth Assent only and will not profess consent also doth not profess Christianity For Christianity and true faith lieth in the Wils consent as well as the understandings Assent 2. And how can Mr. Bl call this Dogmatical faith a covenanting when covenanting is known to be the expression of the Wils consent and not the profession of an opinion 3. If a Dogmatical faith be the condition and make a man a Christian then he may be a Christian against his Will which was yet never affirmed But Mr. Bl. in his explication of this Dogmatical faith addeth by way of exclusion though not affecting the heart to a full choice of Christ Where he seems to imply though he express it not that the faith which he meaneth doth affect the heart to a choice of Christ which is not full But if so then 1. It is much more then Assent or a meer Historical Dogmatical faith 2. But is the choice which he intimateth Real as to the Act and suited to the Object That is the real choice of such a Christ as is offered and on such terms If so it is Justifying faith If not either it is counterfeit as to the Act or but nominal as to the Object and is indeed no choosing of Christ Though perhaps it may not be suited to the Accidentals of the object yet to the Essentials it must or else it hath but equivocally the name as a corps hath the name of a man He saith The Covenant is the Ground of Baptism otheewise Church-membership would evince no Title c. Repl. 1. I take Gods precept to be the Ground of Baptism as it is officium a Duty both as to the baptizer and the baptized and his Promise or his Covenant Grant to be the Ground of mens Right to it as it is a Benefit given directly by God and their own true consent faith or covenanting which with me are all one for all that you say against it to be the condition of that Right But then I think that in foro Ecclesiae a dissembler may claim that Right which strictly he hath not and we must grant him what he claims when he brings a Probable ground of his claim And in that it is Ministers duty to Baptize such they may indirectly and quoad Ecclesiam be said to have Right to be Baptized I say Indirectly yea and improperly for it is not the result of Gods Covenant Grant to them but of his precept to his Ministers and his Instructions whom they ought to Baptize 2. I argued from Right of admission to Church-membership with Mr. T. and that Right I take the heart-covenant of Parent or parties themselves to be the condition of as to the Invisible Church-state and the Profession of that Covenant not alone but joyned with it to be the condition of true Right before God to Visible-membership though men are but to use him as one that hath true Right who by an hypocritical profession seems to have Right Where he takes me to grant his Antecedent that the Covenant is entred
commands them to preach the Gospel then he enacteth that on this preaching He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved It is then a saving Faith It is plain that Christ purposely putteth it before baptism as its due place even as that preaching to which Faith is here related is put before and in that he gives us here the exact compendium of his new Law And if it be not this saving Faith that goes before baptism then Christ doth not so much as mention it And to imagine that in this summe of his Covenant he doth both leave wholly unmentioned that Faith which is the prerequisite condition of Baptism and also put in its place another Faith which is consequential this is to suppose Christ to clogg the most essential parts and clearest compendiums of his Law with such insuperable obscurities that it cannot be understood And say the like by all other Scripture and you will make it more dark then the Papists accuse it to be Act. 16.31 32 33. The Jaylor asks what he shall do to be saved Paul answers him Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house to which end they spake to him the word of the Lord and to all that were in his house and so He was Baptized believing in God with all his house The Faith that Paul here commends to him was a saving Faith expresly He that is said to believe upon that command and instruction is supposed to believe with the same faith that was so required of him Act. 10.47 48. The Gentiles there were not only true Believers but had the Holy-Ghost before baptism Act. 16.15 The Lord opened Lydias heart which seems to signifie a special operation of the Spirit before she was baptized Act. 18.8 Crispus and all his house believed on the Lord which signifieth more then an Historical Faith So Act. 19.4 5. It was believing on Christ and in his name that was the Antecedent to their baptism Mat. 28.19 Go Disciple all Nations baptizing them that Discipling which is here commanded is in order to go before baptism but it is making men sincere Disciples that is here commanded therefore It is presupposed what ever Discipling it be that it is not the Event but the Endeavor that is here made their dutie And if it be only common Discipleship then the Apostles and other Preachers of the Gospel are not commanded to endeavor to make men true sound Believers and Disciples till they had first baptized them which is untrue Moreover the Baptismal Faith must be a Faith in Christs blood for the application of the water signifieth the application of Christs blood and therefore their reception of the one signifieth the other But Faith in Christs blood is Justifying Faith Rom. 3.25 26. The Righteousness of God which is by the Faith of Jesus Christ is unto all and upon all them that believe Rom. 3.22 It is therefore but equivocally called believing in Christ as being but some part of that belief which attaineth not this Righteousness How many times over and over do Christ and his Apostles promise pardon and salvation to all that believe in Christ without distinction of believing whence it seems evident that it is but improperly and equivocally called Believing in Christ which is not Justifying and saying See Joh. 3.15 16 18. and 11.25 26. and 7.38 and 12.46 44. and 5.24 and 6.35 40 47. and 14.12 1 Joh. 5.1 5 10. 1 Pet. 2.6 Rom. 9.33 and 4.5 and 10.11 Act. 13.48 Moreover how easie is it to bring many Texts that prove that it was true saying Faith it self that Christ and his Apostles preached to men and endeavored to bring them to before baptism Nay finde any one of them that ever did otherwise whereas according to Mr. Blakes Doctrine they should have perswaded them to a Dogmatical Faith only before baptism I mean to be before performed and a justifying Faith after But I will adde no more of this Argu. 23. The Church hath ever supposed baptized persons to be saved unless they afterward did violate that Covenant Therefore they supposed them to have the condition of salvation Faith and Repentance Hence those high elogies of baptism in most of the Fathers wherein they are now mis-interpreted by many as if they ascribed it to the external ordinance whereas they presuppose as the blood and Covenant of Christ so the right qualifications of the partie baptized upon which supposition which we are bound to entertain of all that make a probable profession they did so predicate the glorious effects of Baptism as well they might Argu. 24. Mr. Blakes Doctrine of Baptismal Faith leaves us in utter obscuritie so that no man according to it can tell whom to Baptize He hath not that I can finde given us any description of that Faith which entitles to baptism and I verily think is not able to tell us what he would have himself to be taken for it If it were a meer Dogmatical Faith then those should be baptized that were utterly unwilling or at least unwilling to take God for their God or Christ for their Lord and Saviour and the Holy-Ghost for their Sanctifier and should openly profess I will not have this man reign over me for I cannot yet spare the pleasure of my sin If Mr. Bl. mean that there is requisite somewhat of the will and consent though not so much as to justifie why did he not tell us what acts of the Will they be that are necessary Is it only a consent to have God called theiâ— God and themselves named his people I will not be so uncharitable as to think that is his meaning Is â—t only a consent to be baptized and to hear the Word and receive the Sacraments then might it stand with the foresaid disclaiming of the Government of God and the Redeemer and so of obedience I think by that time Mr. Bl. hath but adventured to give us an exact definition or description of that Faith which he makes prerequisite and sufficient to baptism which I hereby intreat him to do he will have set us up so fair a mark to shoot at that with a very little skill it may be smitten to the dust Argu. 25. 1 Joh. 2.19 They went out from us but they were not of us for if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us but they went out that it might be made manifest that they were not all of us They were not therefore truly Christians Disciples Church-Members but equivocally Argu. 26. I will end as I begun with humane testimony 1. Our Divines against the Papists do generally plead that hypocrites are not true members of the universal Church but as a woodden leg is to the body I am loth to turn over books and transcribe without need but I shall soon do it if it be denied 2. Our Divines against the Arminians do suppose the first act of believing to be the first time that God
my wit If it had been said The Covenant commandeth perfection and not sincerity Or The Covenant Accepteth sincerity but not Commandeth it there had been some reason for this charge But do you think that sincerity is no part of Perfection Can the Covenant require perfection and not require sincerity when sincerity is contained in perfection If you take sincerity exclusivè only as excluding perfection and not at all formaliter then it s true that it is not commanded nor is a duty but a failing For I hope the Gospel doth not command Imperfection but tender us a Remedy for it You might with more colour have argued that then Repentance is no Duty because inconsistent with commanded perfection But that will not hold neither For they suppose Repentance commanded by the same Law in case and upon certain supposal of Imperfection or sin §. 90. Mr. Bl. ANd therefore I conclude that as in the Law there was pure Justice as well in the command Given as punishment threatned without any condescension or indulgence So in the Covenant there is mercy and condescension as well in the Condition required as in the Penalty that is annexed to it The Covenant requires no more then it accepts §. 90. R. B. ALL this will be easily granted you by those of the contrary part as nothing to the purpose It follows not that because there is condescension in the Condition that therefore there is such an abatement in the Precept or that the Covenant hath no Precept but de praestanda Conditione 2. It were strange if the Covenant should require more then it accepts Did ever sober man much less such as your Reverend adversaries imagine a thing so Impious as if God would not Accept that which himself commandeth But if you would have said as your arguing requires that the Covenant accepteth no less then the whole which it commandeth or requireth then not only your Antagonists but my self and many another will deny it and demand your proof But here I take this as granted by you that you take not the word Covenant at least so restrainedly as excluding all Precept for I suppose you mean Commanding in the terms requiring and calling for as duty §. 91. Mr. Bl. THe alone Argument so far as ever I could learn that hath brought some of Reverend esteem into this opinion is That if the Covenant requires not exact perfection in the same height as the Law calls for it then a Christian may fall short of the Law in his Obedience and not sin perfection being not called for from him nor any more called for from him then through Grace he doth perform he rises as high as his Rulâ— and sins not through any Imperfection therefore to make it out that a Believers Imperfections are his sins it must needs be that the Covenant requires perfection as to make good that he may be saved in his Imperfections it must be maintained that he accepts sincerity But this Argument is not of weight Christ entring a Gospel-Covenant with man findes him under the command of the Law which command the Law still holds the Gospel being a confirmation not a destruction of it All Imperfection thâ—n is a sin upon that account that it is a Transgression of the Law though being done against heart and labored against it is no breach of Covenant wee are under the Law as men we are taken into Covenant as Christians retaining the humane nature the Law still commands as though the covenant in Christ through the abundant Grace of it upon the terms that it requires and accepts frees us from the sentence of it §. 91. R. B. 1. I Was at first doubtful lest by the Law you had meant as the Lutherans a Law of God in general as opposed to the Gospel as being no Law and that you had meant by the Law only the Moral Precepts which is but the matter of the Law of Nature or of Works or of the Law of Grace in some respect But I perceive that you mean the entire Law both Precept and Sanction by your mentioning the Sentence of it If therefore you do by the Law mean but one Species viz. the Law of Nature acknowledging the new Law of Grace commonly called the New Covenant from the Promise which is the most eminent part to be a Law too then I agree with you in this solution as to the matter of Perfection or else not And yet I dare not hold that the New Law commandeth no more then its Condition But for them that use the word Covenant for nothing but the bare Promise I must tell them that it is but a piece of Gods Law or Instrument separated from the body which they fasten a Name upon and if they will signifie so much that it is but part of the Redeemers Law of Grace which they call a Covenant and will give another name to the whole that so we may understand them I would not willingly quarrel with them about words But if it be the thing as well as the name that they err in affirming that the Gospel is a meer Promise and that God hath no Law but one and that one the Law of Works or else that all his Precepts Natural and Positive are one Law by themselves as distinct from the Sanctions when Precepts are but part of Gods Laws which by their Sanctions are specified and distinguished as most think into two sorts of Nature and of Grace but as Camero thinks into three sorts of Nature of Jewish works of Grace then I not only profess my dissent but do esteem the former error very dangerous and intolerable and the later such as tendeth to great confusion in the body of Theologie 2. This very Argument which you recite and answer doth undenyably prove that the Divines whom you oppose do by the Covenant of Grace understand all the Law that is now in force under the Government of the Redeemer Otherwise they would never imagine that there is no sin but what is against the Covenant of Grace and that there is no other Rule but this Covenant for a Christians obedience It is therefore out of doubt that this difference is but about words or little more they taking that Covenant of Grace in a larger sense then you and I think meet to take it If you should reply that it is an unreasonable thing of them to take it so largely I say that I do not think meet to imitate them in it but I could shew you so much said that way by the forementioned Reverend Learned man your friend and mine as would convince you that they have more to say for what they do then every one that is against them is able to answer §. 92. The Conclusion HAving thus taken the boldness to examine your Exceptions and deliver my Reasons against some of your opinions I do crave your favorable acceptance of what I have done and your friendly interpretation or remission of any