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
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
as full a Righteousness in relation to this part of the Law as if the matter of faith and obedience were more perfect The strongest faith doth not make you Righteous in a higher degree then the weakest that is true For the strongest is but praestatio conditionis which is the Righteousness in question and so is the weakest It is not therefore from this act of the Law determination of the condition that our graces or duties are diversified as more or less perfect in degree but it is in respect to the other act or part of the Law determination of duty as such So that in a word Duty simply as duty and holiness or supernatural grace as such may be more or less But holiness and duty as the Materia requisita vel subjectum proximum Justitiae consistit in indivisibili Only let it be remembred that I speak this of the promise of impunity and glory everlasting absolutely considered and not of a comparative degree of glory For it may be yet consistent with this that a greater faith love and obedience may have a promise of greater glory Remember also I pray you if you will do me justice 1. That I did only assert in my Aphorismes 1. A metaphysical perfection of Being and 2. A perfection of sufficiency in order to its end in our righteousness 2. And the same transcendental perfection of Being I affirmed of holiness it self only adding that it being a Quality may be intended and remitted but Righteousness being a Relation cannot ex parte sui Now which of these perfections of Righteousness do you deny Not that of sufficiency as to the end as you expresly affirm It must therefore be the transcendental perfection of Essence And if that be denied then righteousness is no righteousness for so omne ens perfectum est And then you must maintain that it is but equivocally called righteousness but indeed is not sn But yet this I finde you not about but rather confess the contrary not only by affirming inherent Righteousness but also affirming a double perfection of it which you are pleased to call subjective and objective and which can be no less then I here affirmed §. 29. Mr Bl. 1 ISaiah I am sure saith All our Righteousness are as filthy rags Isa 64.6 No greater charge of imperfection can lye against the most imperfect holiness then the Prophet laies upon our Righteousness 2 Neither do I understand how holiness should be imperfect taken materially and righteousness perfect taken formally in reference to a Rule §. 29. R.B. 1. WIll not all the imperfections of our Righteousness which in the Aphor. I asserted serve to warrant the Prophets comparison without our denying the perfection of Being That is that it is truly Righteousness 2. My opinion of that Text is that the Prophet means plainly We are an unrighteous people or we have no other Righteousness to glory of but what is indeed no righteousness at all no more then the filthy rags are clean no nor so much for they may possibly have some part clean Yet that this is called Righteousness is no wonder when the next words are Negative q. d. our Righteousness is none or is unrighteousness yea it is not unusual to give the name either from common estimation or the persons profession and especially from those actions which use to be the matter of Righteousness though the form being wanting they are not now actually the matter So I think Solomon forbiddeth overmuch Righteousness Further it 's considerable what Righteousness it is that the Prophet there speaks of whether universal or particular and whether Legal consisting in absolute perfection or Evangelical consisting in sincerity and also whether he speak of himself and each individual or only of the Jewish Nation described according to the generality or main part of them 3. As for that next passage where you tell us what you understand not I confess it seems strange to me but I hope you make it no argument against the opinion which you oppose If it were a good argument indeed then the less a man understands the better he might dispute But let us see what it is that you understand not 1. How holiness should be imperfect taken materially Sure you understand that for what else did you mean in the foregoing words No greater charge of imperfection can lye against the most imperfect holiness 2. It is therefore no doubt the other branch that you mean how Righteousness is perfect taken formally in reference to a Rule 1. That Righteousness in sensu Legali sorensi is a relation consisting in a conformity or congruency to the Rule I suppose you understand seeing both Schoolmen and Protestant Divines do so commonly affirm it e. g. Scotus and Dr Twiss oft 2. That omne ens est essentialiter perfectum I suppose also you understand and so that this Relation must be a perfect Relation or none at all where there is the form there is the being and therefore the word Righteousness spoken formaliter of our Righteousness must needs express that which is truly Righteousness and not equivocally so called 3. Yea I suppose you understand that Relations do not admit of magis and minus ex parte sui but only when they are founded in quality ex parte fundamenti vel subjecti At least if any would deny that yet the relation in question being of the nature of Parity and not of similitude only which are both implied in conformity doth not so much as ratione fundamenti admit of intension or remission These things being all so generally acknowledged you leave me only to admire that you should say You understand them not §. 30. Mr Bl. WE may for ought I know as well make holiness formall and referre it to a Rule and Righteousness materiall in an absolute consideration without reference to any Rule at all §. 30. R.B. 1. WHether you take holiness as signifying a Quality or Relation there is no doubt but it hath its form or else it could not have a Being Did you indeed imagine that I had denied that 2. But that holiness in our common use of the word doth formally consist in the relation of our qualities or acts to the Law especially in that relation of conformity that we are now speaking of I finde not yet proved Holiness taken for the qualities and acts themselves is no relation Holiness taken for Dedication to God is such a kinde of Relation as Donation is It referres to God as the terminus For omne sanctum est Deo sanctum But to be Dedicated to God and to be conformed to the Law or Rule are not all one 3. If you or any man resolve to use holiness in the same sense as righteousness if I once know your mindes I will not contradict you for I finde no pleasure in contending about words But for my self I must use them in the common sense if I will be understood 4. That you may use
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
of Repenting and Believing Loving God for our Redemption and Christ as Redeemer Loving men as Redeemed ones and as Members of Christ Ministry Sacraments Church-assemblies proper to the Gospel with the means to be used for getting keeping or improving this Grace as such the command of Hope or looking for Christs second coming c. and of sincere obedience I conceive the first as containing the summe of all and specially this last as containing the whole Systeme of the Doctrine and Laws of our Redemption and Restauration are the fittest senses for us ordinarily to use the word Covenant of Grace in vide Grotii dissertationem de nomine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ante Annotat. in Novum Testam Now if the question be whether in any of these senses the New Covenant doth command perfect obedience I answer All the doubt is of the 3 latter But I rather think negatively that in none of these Acceptions can the New Covenant be said to require perfect obedience 6. But then some take the New Law or Covenant for the whole Law that now stands unrepealed and obligeth the Subjects of the Mediator supposing the Moral Law to be now the Law or Covenant of Grace i. e. the matter of it as it was formerly the matter of the Law of Works and that the Covenant of Works being totally and absolutely Abrogated the Moral Law must be the material part of the Covenant or Law of Grace or of none and of some it must be For God gives no precepts but upon some terms or with some sanction of Reward or Punishment And hereupon they say that it is now the Moral Law which is the matter of the new Covenant which commandeth perfect obedience This is maintained by an acquaintance and friend of Mr. Blakes a man of extraordinary Learning and Judgement especially as throughly studyed in these things as any that ever I was acquainted with For my part though I think the difference is most in notions and terms yet I still judge that the Law of Works that is the Precept and Threatning are not abrogated though the Promise of that Law be Ceased and so it is not so fitly now called a Covenant and some particular Precepts are abrogate or ceased and so I think it is this remaining Law of nature which Commandeth perfect obedience and still pronounceth Death the due punishment of our disobedience But I acknowledge even this Law of Nature to be now the Law of Christ who as Redeemer of all mankinde hath Nature and its Law and all things else delivered unto him to dispose of to the advantage of his Redemption Ends But still I suppose this Law of Nature to be so far from being the same with the Law of Grace that it is this which the Law of Grace Relaxeth and whose obligation it dissolveth when our sins are forgiven So that the difference is but in the Notion of Unity or Diversity whether seeing all is Now the Redeemers Law it be fitter to say It is one Law or that They are two distinct Laws For in the matter we are agreed viz. that the Promise of the first Law is ceased because God cannot be obliged to a subject made uncapable and some particular Precepts are ceased Cessante materia and Moses Jewish Law is partly ceased and partly abrogate and that there is now in force as the Redeemers Law the Precept of perfect obedience and the Threatning of Death to every sin with a Grant of Remission and salvation to all that sincerely Repent and Believe and a threatning of far sorer punishment to the Impenitent and Unbelievers Thus far the Agreement The disagreement is but this I think that though these are both the Redeemers Laws yet they are to be taken as two One in this forme Perfect Obedience is thy Duty or obey perfectly Death is thy Due for every sin The other in this forme Repent and Believe and thou shall be saved from the former curse Or else damned Others thinks that it is fitter to say that these two are but one Law quoad formam running thus I command to thee faln man perfect obedience and oblige thee to Punishment for every sin Yet not remedilesly but so as that if thou Believe and Repent this Obligation shall be dissolved and thou saved else not To this purpose the foresaid Learned Judicious and much honored Brother explains his opinion to me Now as long as we agree that the former Law or part of the Law call it which you will doth Actually oblige to perfect obedience or future Death and the latter Law or part of the Law doth upon the performance of the Condition dissolve â—his Obligation and give us Jus ad impunitatem salutem what great matter is it whether we call it One Law or Two For we are agreed against them that look on the Moral Law as to the meer preceptive part as standing by it self being not the matter of any Covenant or connexed to any sanction to specifie it To apply this now to Mr. Blakes Question It is most likely that those Divines that affirm that the Covenant of Grace doth require perfect obedience and Accept sincere do take that Covenant in this last and largest sense and as containing the Moral Law as part of its matter and so no doubt it is true if you understand it of perfection for the future as speaking to a creature already made imperfect Now seeing the whole difference is but about the Restriction or Extension of the terme Covenant I conceive after twentie years study Mr. Bl. should not make it so material nor charge it so heavily And though I am not of that partie and opinion my self which he chargeth yet seeing it may tend to reconciliation and set those men more right in his thoughts to whom he professeth such exceeding reverence I will briefly examine his Reasons ab absurdis which he here bringeth in against them §. 83. Mr. Bl. 1. IT establisheth the former opinion opposed by Protestants and but now refused as to the Obedience and the Degree of it called for in Covenant and if I should be indulgent to my affections to cause my Judgement to stoop dislike of the one would make me as averse from it as an opinion of the other would make me prone to receive it Judgment therefore must lead and Affections be waved §. 83. R. B. IF you interpret the Papists as meaning that the Law requires true Perfection but Accepts of sincere then if it be spoken of the Law of Works or Nature it is false and not the same with theirs whom you oppose who suppose it is the Covenant of Grace that so accepts of sincerity If you take them as no doubt you do as meaning it of the Law of Christ as the Trent Council express themselves then no doubt but they take the Law of Christ in the same extended sense as was before expressed and then they differ from us but in the forementioned Notion But then
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