THE CONTENTS THe Prologue to Mr. Blake pag. 1 Certain Distinctions and Propositions explaining my sense How Christ as King is the Object of Justifying Faith § 1. pag. 3 Ten Arguments proving that Christ as King and Head is the object of the Justifying Act of Faith § 1. pag. 3 4 The common Distinction between Fides Quae and Fides Quâ Justificat examined § 1. pag. 7 The danger of the contrary Doctrine § 1. pag. 8 The former Doctrine defended against Mr. Blakes Exceptions § 1. pag. 9 The same defended against more of his Exceptions and the faith Heb. 11 explained § 2. pag. 10 James 2. about Justification by works explained and vindicated § 3. pag. 12 How far works Justifie § 3 4. pag. 14 15 Why I wrote against the Instrumentality of Faith in Justifying § 5. ibid Ethical Active improper Receiving distinguished from Physical Passive proper Receiving § 5. pag. 17 How Christ dwels in us by Faith § 5. ibid Mr. Bl's Exceptions against my opposition of Faiths Instrumentality in Receiving Christ considered § 6. pag. 18 Mr. Bl's dangerous Doctrine That God is not the sole efficient nor any Act of God the sole Instrument of Justification § 7 8. pag. 19 Mr. Bl's contradiction that faith is the Instrument of man and yet man doth not Justifie himself § 9. pag. 20 Whether Faith be both Gods Instrument and mans in Justification § 10. pag. 21 Further how Christ is said to Dwell in us by Faith § 10. pag. 22 The common opinion of Faiths Instrumentality opened and the Truth further explained § 11. pag. 23 More of Mr Bl's reasoning on this confuted § 12. pag. 27 Whether God make use of our Faith as his Instrument to Justifie us § 13 pag. 28 Whether the Covenant of God be his Instrument of Justification § 14. pag. 28 Mr. Bl's arguing against the Instrumentality of the Promise confuted § 15 16. pag. 29 Mr. Bl's dangerous Doctrine confuted that the Efficacy that is in the Gospel to Justification it receives by their Faith to whom it is tendred § 17 18. pag. 30 Whether Mr. Bl say truly that the word hath much less an Influx to the producing of the Effect by a proper Causality then faith § 19. pag. 31 In what way of Causality the word worketh § 20. pag. 32 Whether the word be a Passive Instrument § 21 pag. 33 Mr. Bl's strange Doctrine examined that the word is a Passive Instrument of Justification § 22 23. pag. 34 More against Mr. Bl's Doctrine that Faith through the Spirit gives efficacy and power of working to the Gospel in forgiving sins § 24. pag. 35 Fuller proof of the most proper Instrumentality of the Gospel in Justification § 25. pag. 36 Mr. Bl. Contradiction in making Faith and the Gospel two Instruments both making up one compleat Instrument § 25. pag. 37 More against Mr. Bl. strange doctrine that Faith gives efficacy as an Instrument to the word § 25. pag. 37 A Condition what and how differing from meer Duty § 27. pag. 38 The difference between us compromized or narrowed § 27 pag. 40 Of Evangelical personal Righteousness § 28. pag. 41 What Righteousness is § 28. pag. 43 In what sense our personal Righteousness is Imperfect and perfect § 28 pag. 44 Isa 64.6 explained Our Righteousness is as filthy rags § 29. pag. 46 How Holiness is perfect or Imperfect § 30. pag. 47 Whether Holiness or Righteousnes be capable neither of perfection nor Imperfection but in relation to a Rule § 31 32. pag. 48 Concerning my charging learned Divines with Ignorance and other harsh speeches § 33. pag. 49 We are not denominated personally righteous for our conformity to the Law of works only or properly proved § 33. pag. 50 Whether as Mr. Bl. saith the old Rule the Moral Law be a perfect Rule and the only Rule § 33. pag. 51 A Vindication of the Author from the imputation of Arrogance for charging some Divines with Ignorance § 33. pag. 49 Whether Imperfect Conformity to the Law be Righteousness as an Image less like the patern is an Image § 35. pag. 54 How fairly Mr. Bl. chargeth me to say Sincerity is the New Rule § 36 pag. 55 An Answer to Davenants Testimony cited by Mr. Bl. § 37. pag. 56 How far Vnbelief and Impenitency in professed Christians are violations of the New Covenant § 38. pag. 57 How many sorts of Promises or Covenants there are in Scripture mentioned § 39. pag. 58 How far Hypocrites and wicked men are or are not in Covenant with God in several Propositions § 39. pag. 60 An enquiry into Mr. Bl's meaning of Dogmatical faith and being in Covenant § 39. pag. 64 Of the Outward Covenant as they call it and how far the Vnbelievers or Hypocrites may have right to Baptism and other Ordinances § 39. ibid Mr Bl's Absurdities supposed to follow the restraint of the Covenant to the Elect considered § 41. pag. 80 Our own Covenanting is the principal part of the Condition of Gods promise or Covenant of Grace § 41. pag. 81 Whether I make the Seal of Baptism and of the Spirit to be of equal latitude § 42. pag. 84 Mr. Bl's dangerous argument answered The great Condition to which Baptism engageth is not a prerequisite in Baptism But Justifying Faith is such Therefore § 43. ibid More of Mr. Bl's Arguments answered § 44 45. pag. 86 My Arguments Vindicated from Mr. Bl's Exception § 46. to 52. pag. 88 26 Arguments to prove that it is Justifying faith which God requires of them that come to Baptism and that Mr. Bl's doctrine in this is unsound and unsafe § 52. pag. 94 Of Mr. Bl's Controversie with Mr. Firmin § 53. pag. 107 My asserting of the Absolute promise of the first Grace vindicated § 55 pag. 108 Whether our Faith and Repentance be Gods works § 55. pag. 109 What Life was promised to Adam in the first Covenant § 56. pag. 111 Of the Death threatned by the first Covenant § 57. pag. 112 Whether the Death of the body by separation of the soul were determinately threatned § 58. pag. 113 Of the Law as made to Christ § 59. pag. 115 Whether the Sacrament seal the Conditional promise Absolutely or the Conclusion I am Justified and shall be saved Conditionally § 60 61 62 63. pag. 115 The Nature of sealing opened § 64. pag. 118 20 Propositions shewing how God sealeth § 64. pag. 119 That the minor being sealed the Conclusion is not eo nomine sealed as Mr. Bl. affirmeth § 65. pag. 123 How Sacraments seal with particular Application § 67. pag. 125 Mr. Bl's doctrine untrue that If the Conclusion be not sealed then no Proposition is sealed § 68. pag. 126 Whether it be Virtually written in Scripture that Mr. Bl. is Justified § 69. pag. 126 More about Condiâ—ional sealing § 70 71. pag. 128 Whether it is de fide that Mr. Bl. is Justified § 72 73 74. pag. 129 In what sense we deny
believe all the Creed and Word of God but I will not have Christ Reign over me at the present but I promise that hereafter I will see Doctor Drake against Mr. Humfrey whether they would admit such Hierom argues thus from Baptism to the Administration of the Lords Supper therefore I may do it as to the receiving Quamobrem oro te utaut sacrificandi ei licentiam tribuas cujus baptisma probas aut reprobes ejus baptisma quem non existimas sacerdotem Neque enim fieri potest ut qui in baptismate sanctus est sit apud altare peccator Hier. Dialog adv Luciferian Argu. 17. That Doctrine which feigneth an un-sealed Covenant for giving right to the Seal of the Covenant of Grace is unsound But such is Mr. Blakes therefore No Scripture can be brought to prove such an outward Covenant of Gods And it is against the common reason and custom of men that a second Covenant should be drawn to convey right to the Seal of the first Covenant seeing right to Covenant and Seal go together and if there must be another Covenant to give right to that then by the same reason there must be another to give right to that and another to that and so in infinitum To the Antecedent it is apparent that Mr. Bl. distinguisheth ex parte Dei between the outward and the inward Covenant It is probable that he thus distributes them from the blessings promised whereof some are inward and some outward for though he explain not himself fully yet I know no other sense that it will bear It is evident that his outward Covenant hath no Seal For it is a Covenant de sigillis conferendis If therefore it have a Seal it is either the same which is promised or some other Other I never heard of they nowhere tell us what is the Seal of their outward Covenant The same it cannot be for the same thing cannot be the materia foederis or the Legacy it self or the benefit given and the Seal too of that Covenant whereby it is given Argu. 18. That Doctrine which makes it the regular way in Baptism for all men to promise that which they can neither sincerely promise nor perform is unsound but such is Mr. Blakes therefore The disabilitie which I here speak of is not such as is in a Godly man to do any good without Christ and the Spirit as is in the second cause to act without the first or in a partial cause to act without its compartial but such as is in an unregenerate man to do the work of the Regenerate or in any broken instrument or disabled agent to do its own part of the work till it be altered and made another thing as it were For the consequence it is evident in that 1. No man should ever perform Gods command concerning covenanting 2. And no mans word were fit to be taken concerning the performance of his own Covenant 1. Whether God may or do command some men or all men that which they have not abilitie to perform is nothing to the point For yet he gives some of them abilitie and causeth them to perform it when he makes it necessarie to salvation But in this case God should enable no man regularly to that Baptismal Covenant which he commandeth nor should any obey his command For he commandeth them sincerely to take him for their God and promise to Love Believe and Obey him hereafter For to dissemble he commands none But this no unrenewed Soul can do or ever did to this day They cannot resolve it therefore they cannot sincerely promise it and if justifying Faith must regularly begin after baptism as being the great condition to which it engages and not prerequisite then it is only unregenerate men that are the regular subjects of baptism 2. And its plain that he who cannot sincerely promise and therefore doth it dissemblingly or with a half heart nor is able to perform his promise is not to be credited God himself never enableth an unregenerate man to believe and repent savingly while he is such in sensu composito and therefore is it likely that it is ordinarily and regularly such dead men that must Covenant to Repent and Believe to justification Renewing Grace must intercede which is not in their hand how then can they promise to do the works of the truly Gracious God may invite and command the dead to live yea and to do the works of the living because he gave them life and gives them means for revival But I know not where he calls such men to promise to do it much less is the constant Baptismal Covenant such Argu. 19. If the Distribution of the Church into visible and invisible be but of the subject by divers Adjuncts and not of a Genus into its Species then that part or those members which are meerly visible are indeed no part or members of the Church so distributed but are only equivocally called a Church Christians Church-Members c. But the Antecedent is true therefore The Antecedent is not only the common Doctrine of the Reformed Divines against the Papists but is expressly affirmed by Mr. Blake in this his Book The consequence is undeniable in that Adjuncts are no part of the Essence much less the Form or the whole Essence and therefore cannot denominate but equivocally instead of the Essence Note that visibile is not the same with visum Argu. 20. If the man without the wedding Garment had coram Deo Right to be there then would not the Lord have challenged him therein with a friend how camest thou in hither not having on a wedding Garment If you will help him that was speechless to an answer and say for him Lord he was compelled to come in al thy command I Reply He that compelled him by invitation did not only bid him come but to come not only to come in but to come in as a Guest should to honor and not disgrace the Feast At lest it should have been known as implyed It was no unrevealed thing Argu. 21. If Circumcision were the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith even a Justifying Faith already in being then so is Baptism but the former is certain Rom. 4.11 12. He received the sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe though they be not circumcised that Righteousness might be imputed to them also The last words confirm the consequence also Argu. 22. Many texts of Scripture shew that it was Justifying Faith that was by God required in the aged in baptism which I will cite together and not stand to fetch an argument from each alone Act. 2.38 39. was before cited verse 41. It was they that gladly received the word that were Baptized Act. 8.37 also is before spoke to It must be believing with all the heart Mar. 16.15 16. is very plain first Christ
the conditions of the Law of grace and therefore hath no right to Christ and Life or say simply that we have no right to Remission and Salvation if we can deny the charge and produce our performance of the said conditions we are then non-condemnandi and the Law of grace which giveth Christ and Life on those conditions will justifie us against that charge of having no right to Christ and Life But I think so will not the Moral Law The Law of works justifieth no man but Christ therefore it is not the Law of works by which we are to be justified in judgement But some Law we must be justified by for the Law is the Rule of judgement and the word that Christ hath spoken shall judge us therefore it must be by the perfect Law of Grace and Liberty If it be then said against us that we are sinners against the Law of nature we shall all have an answer ready Christ hath made sufficient satisfaction But if it be said that we have no right to the pardon and righteousness which is given out by vertue of that satisfaction then it is the Law of Grace and not the Moral Law that must justifie us Even that Law which saith Whosoever beleeveth shall not perish c. Moreover doth not the Apostle say plainly that Christ is the Mediator of a better Covenant established on better promises and if that first Covenant had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second but finding fault with them he saith Behold the daies come saith the Lord that I will make a new Covenant c. Heb. 8.6 7 8. which speaks not only of Ceremonial precepts but principally of the promisory part If you should say This is the Covenant and not the law I Reply 1. Then the law is not the only Rule 2. It s the same thing in several respects that we call a Law a Covenant except you mean it of our Covenant act to God of which we speak not Who knows not that praemiare punire are acts of a Law and that an act of oblivion or general pardon on certain terms is a Law and that the promise is the principal part of the Law of grace So that I have now given you some of my Reasons why I presumed to call that Ignorance which I did not then know that you would so Wholly own §. 34. Mr Bl. THe perfection of this holiness and righteousness in mans integrity stood in the perfect conformity to this Law and the reparation of this in our regenerate estate in which the Apostle placeth the Image of God must have reference as to God for a pattern so to his Law as a Rule §. 34. R.B. 1. IT was the very transcendentall perfection which is convertible with its being as to Righteousness which then stood in a perfect conformity to the Law Adam after his first sin was not only less righteous but reus mortis condemnandus and not righteous in sensu forensi according to that Law For I hope you observe that we speak not of that called Moral Righteousness consisting in a habit of giving every man his own but of Justitia forensis 2. There is a partial reparation of our holiness in regeneration but no reparation of our personal inherent legal Righteousness at all Is Righteousness by the Law of works I take this for dangerous doctrine §. 35. Mr. Bl. AS an Image carrying an imperfect resemblance of its Samplar is an Image so conformity imperfectly answering the Rule is conformity likewise §. 35. R.B. 1. EIther that Image is like the Samplar as you call it in some parts and unlike in others or else it is like in no part but near to like If the later then it is but near to a true Image of that thing and not one indeed If the former then it is nothing to our case 1. Because it is Justitia universalis and not particularis that according to the Law of works must denominate the person righteous and not-condemnable 2. Because indeed no one word action or thought of ours is truly conform to the Law of works 2. Similitude as Schibler tels you truly doth lie in puncto as it were and ex parte sui admits not of magis or minus and therefore strictè philosophice loquendo saith he that only is simile which is perfectly so but vulgariter loquendo that is called simile which properly is but minus dissimile Scripture speaks vulgariter often and not strictè and philosophicè as speaking to vulgar wits to whom it must speak as they can understand And so that may be called the Image or likeness of God which participated of so much of his excellency as that it demonstrateth it to others as the effect doth its cause and so is less unlike God I dare not once imagine that a Saint in heaven is like God in a strict and proper sense 3. If all this were otherwise it is little to your purpose For in this conformity of ours there is something of Quantitative resemblance as well as Qualitative and so it hath a kinde of parity and equality in it as well as similitude to the Rule And I hope you will yield it past doubt that parity admits not of magis minus what ever similitude doth §. 36. Mr Bl. SIncerity is said to be the new Rule or the Rule of the new Covenant But this is no rule but our duty taking the abstract for the concrete sincerity for the sincere walking and this according to the rule of the Law not to reach it but in all parts to aim at and have respect to it Then shall I not be ashamed when I have respect to all thy Commandments Psal 119.6 And this is our inherent righteousness which in reference to its rule labours under many imperfections §. 36. R. B. WHen I first reade these words which you write in a different character and father on me I was ashamed of my non-sense for they are no better but it came not into my thoughts once to suspect a forgery in your charge Far was I from imagining that so Reverend Pious and Dear a Friend would tell the world in Print that I said that which never came into my thoughts and confute that soberly and deliberately as mine which I never wrote and which any man that would reade my Book might finde is wrongfully charged on me And truly I dare not yet say that you are guilty of this For though I have read my Book over and over of purpose in those parts that treat of this subject and can finde no such word as you here charge me with yet before I will lay such a thing to your charge I will suspect that it may possibly be in some odd corner where I overlookt it or cannot finde it But I see if I am not overseen how unsafe it is to report mens words themselves much more their opinions from the reports of another how Grave
under a promise yet it is none of all these that gives them right to Baptism There is no question of any but the last and for that I have proved in my Appendix against Mr. Bedford that it is not that Covenant that Baptism sealeth Whither I refer you to avoid Repeâ—iâ—ion much more easie is it to prove that it is not that bare promise that gives right to Baptism For many are Pagans and Infidels to whom that promise belongs So much for the Absolute promise 2. As for Conditional promises to man they are either 1. Peculiar as extraordinary promises of temporal blessings conditionally made to some particular persons heretofore Of these I say as of the former Wicked men may be under such promises but these give not right to Baptism 2. Common such as are not made to this or that man more then others but to all at least in the tenour of the grant though it be not promulgate to all Of this sort 1. Some suppose certain promises to go before the great Law of grace 2. But I yet know not of any but the Law of grace it self anon to be described 1. Those that do suppose some such antecedaneous promise are of two sorts 1. The Arminians and Jesuites 2. Such as Mr. Blake about Church-Ordinances 1. The Jesuites and Arminians speak of two such common promises 1. One is of the giving of supernatural means of Revelation to men on condition of the right use of natural Revelation As if God had promised to all Heathen and Infidels that never heard of Christ that they shall have the Gospel sent them if they will use the light of nature well or will seek out for the Gospel 2. The other promise which they imagine is that God will give supernatural or special grace viz. the first grace of faith and repentance to men on condition they will use well their common grace and means I know of no such promise as either of these in Scripture of which see Davenant in his Dissertation of Universal Redemption When any Arminian will shew such a promise in Scripture we shall yield But yet I will tell you how far I yield 1. I yield that God doth actually give temporal blessings to wicked men But this is no Covenant or promise Yet it gives them a right to enjoy them de praesenti while they do enjoy them so that it is not sound Doctrine of them that say Wicked men have no right to the creature in whatsoever they possess and that they are but usurpers For if you see one naked in the street and put him on a garment he hath right to wear that and enjoy it while you permit him But yet because you promise him nothing for the future he is not certain a moment of the continuance of that right or possession for you may take it off him again when you will So wicked men have right and possession of Gods mercies by actual collation de praesenti but not by promise de futuro or by such proper donation as gives them the full propriety for so God useth not to part with the propriety of his creatures to any 2. I yield that God doth give to Heathens who have but natural light some helps which have a tendency to their further advancement and doth appoint them certain means to be used for the obtaining of a higher light and that he giveth them sufficient encouragement to go on in the chearfull use of those means in possibilities and probabilities of success so that they are unexcusable that use them not These Mr. Cotton cals half promises as who knows but the Lord may do thus and thus Pray therefore if perhaps the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee c. But promises properly they are not God hath thought meet to keep himself disengaged from this sort of men 3. The very same I yield of men in the visible Church using common grace as well as they can that is that God hath appointed certain means which such men are to use for the getting of special grace that those that perish do justly perish for not using those means so well as they could and so for not beleeving that he hath given them sufficient incouragement to use such means by examples experiences the nature of the means and some half promises of success but no promise properly so called 4. I yield that he actually gives saving grace to wicked men or else none could have it But this they can plead no right to before they have it 2. The second sort of promises before the great Covenant of grace is feigned by Mr. Blake and if there be any other that go that way as some do and that with some difference among themselves and that is A promise of Church-priviledges upon condition of a faith not justifying or saving Here some annex special grace to these Church-priviledges and so fall into the Arminian strain So Dr. Ward against Mr. Gataker doth make a common not-justifying faith the condition of Baptism and then that Baptism a means non ponenti obicem of the certain Justification of all the Baptized and so at least the infants of all common professors baptized should be certainly justified But I finde not Mr. Blake any where owning this connexion of special grace and efficacy of Baptism on such therefore I suppose it is but some common mercies that he supposeth this promise to make over to the Baptized But I will enquire further into his opinion anon 2. The common or general promise-conditional which I acknowledge is the new Law of grace or of faith wherein God promiseth to be our God so we will take him for our God and will be his people and to give us Christ and Life if we will accept him as he is offered in the Gospel or that he that repenteth and beleeveth shall be justified and saved and he that doth not shall be damned Whereto is also annexed the promise of temporal mercies so far as they are good for us as appurtenances to the main blessings of the Covenant Now I will tell you how far wicked men are under this great promise or Covenant 1. As it is a conditional promise on Gods part or a Law of grace enacted conditionally giving Christ and Life to all men so All men are under it or the subjects of it that is All the whole world as to the tenour of the Law of grace following the meer enacting and all that hear the Gospel as to the promulgation 2. So as it hath a precept conjunct requiring them to believe and repent for remission and salvation so all are under it that hear it 3. So are they as to the annexed threatning upon their unbelief and impenitency 4. So as the Preachers of the Gospel do by Commission from Christ apply all this to them and intreat them by name to repent and believe and offer them Christ and the other benefits of the Covenant if they will repent and
Souls But for my part I never yet saw the face of that sober man to my knowledge who durst say That he was as sure or as confident of his own sincerity as of the Truth of Gods Word and particularly of that Promise He that Believeth shall not perish but have Everlasting life And as I have oft said already The Conclusion may not be said to be de fide unless the other Proposition he as evident as that which is de fide because Conclusio sequitur partem deteriorem Yea let me be bold to grow a little higher and to tell you that it seems to me impossible and a contradiction that any man should be more certain that he Believeth sincerely then he is that Gods Word is true or that the Promise is Gods Word which he doth Believe For the truth of God in his Word is the formal object of Faith without which there can be no Faith No man therefore can be more certain that he believes truly then he is that Gods Word is true For to Believe is to apprehend the certain Truth of the Word And none can be more certain that he apprehends the word as certain then he is that the word is certain If you say I am certain that I believe the certainty of the word but weakly I answer At lest then the saving sincerity of your Faith will be as uncertain to you as the word is if not the being of that Faith And then there is no more certainty I think rationally and ordinarily then there is Evidence So much for that Controversie and so of all so far as I have observed which Mr. Blake hath with me or hath called me to give an account of my judgement Whether the Covenant of Grace require perfection and accept sincerity THough I have done with what Mr. Blake saith to me and have no desire to do any thing unnecessary in a way of Controversie yet because it is of the like nature with a subject formerly handled or tends to clear up some things about it I will very briefly touch on his Arguments pag. 107.108 upon this Question §. 82. Mr. Bl. A Second opinion is that the Covenant of Grace requires perfection in the exactest way without help of these mens distinctions in an equal degree with the Covenant of Works but with this difference in the Covenant of Works there is no indulgence or dispensation in case of failing but the penalty takes hold the Curse follows upon it But the Covenant of Grace though it call for perfection such is the exactness of it yet it accepts of sincerity such is the qualification of it through Grace or the mercy in it If I should take up any opinion in the world for the Authors sake or those that have appeared as Patrons of it then I should embrace this The Reverence deservedly due to him that I suppose first manifested himself in it hath caused it to finde great entertainment But upon more then twenty years thoughts about it I finde it labouring under manifold inconveniences §. 82. R. B. 1. IT may seem audaciousness in a young Divine to question that which you shall now so considerately deliver after more then twenty years thoughts But no prejudice must hinder us from a further enquiry after the Truth 2. I began to conjecture that the Reverend person that you mean is Mr. Ball and yet methinks you should not suppose him the Author It is therefore sure some one much elder 3. For the thing it self if I may shoot my bolt upon a shorter deliberation I conceive that all your difference with the men of that Judgement is occasioned by the Ambiguity and various acception of the word Covenant of Grace which in my judgement you ought to have removed by distinguishing before you had argued against their opinion The term Covenant of Grace is sometime taken strictly for the Contract alone either 1. for the full Contract which is mutual or by both parties which is most properly called a Covenant Or 2. for the engagement of one part only 1. either for Gods Promise 2. or mans Herein the Condition is implyed not as commanded but as tendred Now it is certain that taking the Covenant in this restrained sense it doth not command Perfection of obedience for it commands nothing at all nor doth it propound it as the Condition for then we were undone But then it must be known that this is too restrained a sense for us ordinarily to use the word Covenant in God hath made no such Covenant with us which is not a Law in one respect as well as a Covenant in another He layes not by his Soveraignty in Covenanting Nay they are all more properly called Laws then Covenants Even the Promise it self is most properly Lex Gratiae Remedians Like an act of Oblivion or Pardon to a Nation of Rebels Yet comparatively the Law of Grace is far more fitly called a Covenant then the Law of Nature which perhaps is never so called in Scripture because the Promissory part is the predominant part in the Law of Grace the precept being but subservient to that but the preceptive part is most predominant in the Law of nature the Promise being not so much as expressed by Moses and obscure in nature it self so that it will hold great dispute whether God were obliged at all to Reward man with heavenly Glory yea or any proper Reward besides non-punishment which is improperly a Reward The Lutherans are the leaders of that evil custom and conceit of denying the Gospel to be a Law 2. In the next place therefore the word Covenant of Grace is taken for the New Law containing Precept Prohibition Promise and Threatning And here it is taken 1. so narrowly as to comprize only the Precept of Believing with the Promise and Threatning annext as being indeed the principal parts 2. Sometime more largely as containing also the Precepts that Christ hath given the Church since his coming that were not before given Principally that of Believing Jesus to be the Christ and also those of Ministery Ordinances Church-Assemblies c. together with the Doctrines or Articles of Faith which he since revealed 3. Sometime it is more largely taken for that whole Systeme of Doctrines Histories and Laws Precepts Promises and Threats which directly concern the Recovery of faln mankinde 4. Sometime for as much of these as was delivered before Christs coming in Promises Prophesies and Types c. 5. Sometime for as much of these as yet remains in force whether delivered to the Church before the Incarnation or since for many Covenants or Evangelical Promises and Precepts are ceased now that were in force before as that Christ should be born and they should accept his birth c. This last sense containeth the Doctrine of Redemption by Christ and the History of his birth life and Death and Resurrection as Narrations of the occasion end and matter are usual appurtenances of a Law as also the Precepts
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
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
nothing to the nature of an instrument active or passive whether it be produced by the principal agent or not so it do but subserve that agent 2. If this proposition be true there is never an active instrument in rerum natura For Angels and men calor frigus and all creatures are produced by God as the principal cause to the producing of some effects except there be any ultimi effectus found out which are not causes of other effects and they all receive activity and power from God Those that are most for passive instruments say calor is an active instrument But if I use fire to warm my beer or burn any thing this receives its activity and power from another and therefore must be no active instrument with you If there be no active instrument when I thought there had been no passive instrument I was fâ—r wide 3. But what mean these strange words of Activity and power received if the instrument be not active Is not the Potentia here meant Potentia efficiendi and is not all effection by action And is not the activity here mentioned an activity in causing What and yet no active instrument 1 Be not offended with me Dear brother if I confess that you and I differ in more points than one and in our Philosophy as well as Theology §. 23. Mr Bl. BVt the Word is produced and held forth of God for the work of Justification and hath its power of working elsewhere §. 23. R. B. YEt more strange 1. Is it not enough that you take the Word to be a passive instrument of Confirmation and Conversion and all the work that it doth on the souls of your hearers really 〈◊〉 you must feign the Word to be the passive instrument of Justification too Is there any thing in the whole world that can mâ—râ— unfiâ—ly be called a passive instrument then the Covenant of Justification Why it is Gods only instrument of active Constitution of the dueness of the benefiâ— Though it be but actione morali ut â—ignum â—â—lâ—ntatis donatoris The Debitum results from the Grant Deed of Gift Testament or Instrument of Donation or Conveyance as from its fundamentum proximum And is the fundamentum proximum Relatioâ—is a passive Instrument 2. The Word hath its power of working elsewhere that is from God but not from mans faith Farre be such a thought from my soul 3. I suspect by your words when you say the Word is produced and held sorth of God and by your discourse all along that you all this while understand not what I mean by the Covenants justifying yet I had hoped you had understood the thing it self You seem to think that the Covenant justifies by some real operation on the â—oul as the Papists say and our Divines say It sanctifies or as it justifies in forâ— conscientiae by giving assurance and comfort But Sir I opened my thoughts of this fully in Aphor. pag. 173 174 175 176 177 178 179. I scarce bestowed so many words of any one particular point I speak not of the effect of Gods Word as preached to mens hearts but as it is Lex promulgata Faedus Testamentum and so doth convey Right or Constitute the dueness of the benefit This is the Record that God hath given us eternall Life and this Life is in his Son c. 1 Joh. 5.11 12. This Gospel-donation doth constitute the duness of the thing given to us and thus the Covenant justifies as a written pardon under the Kings hand or an act of grace or oblivion doth pardon Do you not oft read in Divines of Justificatio Juris vel Legis as distinct from Justificatio Judicis vel per sententiam I referre you to what I said in the cited place §. 24. Mr Bl. FOrgiveness of sins is preached in the Gospel Act. 13.32 But it is those that beleeve that are justified Faith through the Spirit gives efficacy and power of working to it §. 24. R. B. I Should tremble to say so What Romanist by the doctrine of merit gives more to man in the work of Justification If our faith give efficacy and power to the Gospel to justifie us then we justifie our selves when the Gospel justifies us then the Gospel is our instrument of Justification And can this be unless it be also said that we made the Gospel Then God and we are concauses in the Gospels act of Donation And is it the same power and efficacy for justifying which the Gospel receives from God and which it receives from faith or are they divers If divers shew us what they are and which part of its power and efficacy the Gospel receives from faith and which from God If they are the same then God must convey justifying efficacy and power into faith first and by faith into the Gospel which who imagineth or why should I be so vain as to stand to confute it O that you had condescended so far to your Readers weakness as to have deigned to shew him Quomodo patitur Evangelium recipiendo Quid recipit ut siat potens efficax quomodo haec potentia efficacia fuit in fide utrum eminenter an formaliter aut utrum fides id communicavit quod nunquam habuit quomodo agit fides in hoc influxu causativo in Evangelium with many more of the like which you make necessary to be enquired after And why gave you no proof from Scripture or reason for a point that is so new that I think never man printed before you for so far as I can learn at present That saith gives efficacy and power of sanctifying or exciting Grace perhaps some before you have delivered but that it gives efficacy and power of justifying I think not any 2. And sure you do not take the foregoing words for proof If you do I desire your Reader may not do so What though only Believers are justified by the Covenant Doth it follow that faith gives efficacy and power to the Covenant to justifie Then either there are no conditions or causes sine quibus non or else they all are efficientâ— and give efficacy and power to other efficients What if your father bequeath by his Testament 110 a piece to each of his sons to one on condition he will ask it of his elder brother and thank him for it to another if he be married by such a time to a third if he will promise not to wast it in prodigality Do any of these conditions give efficacy and power to the Testament No Yet the Testament doth not efficaciter agere till they are performed Why is that Because all such instruments work morally only by expressing ut signa the Will of the Agent and therefore they work both when and how he will and it is his Will that they shall not work till such a time and but on such terms and so he frames the conditions himself as obices to suspend his Testament or
the boldness to speak out its consequents and say Gods Word is the Believers wordâ— the Beleever enableth Gods Law of grace to forgive him The Law of grace is defective in power till the Beleever perfect it Credere non est actuâ— subditi vel Legatarâ—â— sed Rectoris Judiâ—is Testatoris Ergo Homo habet authoritatem seipsum Justificandi sibi ipsi condoâ—andi credendo hanc excâ—â—et authoritatem 8. Your strange proof is oft answered What though the Word without faith is no instrument Doth it follow that therefore either faith makes it an inâ—trument or is an instrument it self The King grants an Act of Oblivion or Pardon to a thousand Traytors on condition that by such a day they come and seek and thankfully accept it Doth their seeking or thankfull Acceptance give power and efficacy as an instrument to the Kings Pardon Or are the Pardon and Acceptance one compleat instrument Or is it more fit to call the Traytors Acceptance the instrument of his Pardon then the Kings Act Credat qui credere potis est Twisse saith An audebit Arminianus aliquis affirmare Remissionem pecâ—â—torum esse effectionem fidei tametsi nisi credentibus contingat ista Remissio Dices fidem saltem praerequisitum quiddam esse ad Remissionem peccatorum consequendum Esto atque hac ratione dicatur effectio fidei sed â—u genere tantum causae dispusitivae Twiss Vinâ— Grat. l. 1. part 2. § 25. p. mihi 273. So he oft saith both of Faith and Works that they justifie only ut causae dispositivae and therefore in one kinde of causality and not as instruments properly so called §. 26. Mr Bl. THerefore to winde up this whole Dispute in which I have studied to be brief though I fear some will think I have been too tedious seeing that those that make faith the instrument in Justification make the Gospel an instrument likewise and dare not go about to strip it of its honour I hope that they that make the Gospel an instrument will acknowledge faith to be an instrument in like manner being in their efficacy as instruments so inseparably joyned and so all the Controversie will be fairly ended and concluded Amen §. 27. R. B. 1. IF this be a Dispute I am none of those that think it too long I scarce finde a line in many Pages It is in my eyes so short that it seems as nothing 2. Your motion for decision will take when man is proved to be God then mans act of Beleeving may fairly share of the same honour with Gods act of Legal forgiving And yet then I shall demurre on the preferring it But till then I love Peace and Unity but not on such a compromising as to share the honour of the Redeemer with the redeemed of the Creator with the creature of the Sovereign pardoning with the Traytor pardoned 3. I like Amen better then Ergo and Herberts transformation I much applauâ—â— but not the substitution of Amen for a necessary Ergo. This â—imium 〈◊〉 disputandi genus that can prove all with a word an ipse dico and wipe off all that is opposed with a wet finger I never liked I must next take in what you adde afterwards §. 27. Mr Bl. Pag. 91. Obj. JT is said by another If faith be a condition of the Covenant of Grace then it can be no instrument of our Justification If it be a condition in this Covenant it justifies as a condition and then it cannot justifie as an instrument and so I pull down what I build and run upon contradictions Answ I answer I should rather judge on the contrary that because it is a condition of the Covenant in the way as it is before expresâ— that it is therefore an instrument in our Justification God â—enders the gift of righteousness to be received by faith He Covenants for this faith for acceptation of it By beleeving theâ— we keep Covenant and receive Christ for Justification we as well do what God requires as receive what he tenders we do our duty and take Gods gift and thereby keep Covenant and receive life and so faith is both a condition and an instrument §. 27. R. B. BUt do you take officium and conditio to be all one I easily yield that we may do our duty in beleeving though it were an instrument But a condition is more then a duty yea then a duty to be performed for the obtaining of a benefit Cujacius saith Conditio est Lex addita negotio qua doâ—ec praestetur eventum suspendit Vel est modus vel causa quae suspendit id quod agitur donec ex post-facto confirmetur Or as Mynfinger Cum quid in casum incertum i. e. contingens qui potest tendere ad esse vel non esse conferiur And they are divided into Potestativas Casuales Mixtas Ours is of the former sort and I define it viz. the condition of the Covenant to be Actio voluntaria de fuâ—â—ro a Deo Legislatore Christo Testatore in neva Legâ— Federe Testamento requisita ut ex ejus praestaâ—ione constituatur jus actuale ad beneficium vel ut obligationem eventum suspendat donâ—â— praestetur For ex stipulatione conditionali neque obligatio â—eque actio ulla est anâ—equam conditio eveniat Quia quod est in conditione non est in obligatione Vt Myâ—sing in Iustâ—â— Schol. pag 5 â—â— â— You must consider that it is not de conditione contractus venditionis emptionis vel 〈◊〉 vel â—â—â—ationis or any the like that is propter preâ—ium but it is the condition 〈…〉 but somewhat partaking naturae Feudi as to sâ—me of the Benefits This being premised it is evident that faith cannot justifie both as a condition and as an instrument of Justification For 1. Either of them importeth the proximam causalem rationem of faith as to the effect But it is utterly inconsistent with its nature to have two such different nearest causal interests To be an instrument of justifying is to efâ—ect it per modum instrumenti To be the condition is to be the causa sine quâ non which doth not effect but suspend the effect till performed It hath the name of a cause and sometime is ex materia a moral impulsive and sometime not but it hath the truâ— nature of such a medium ad finem as is no cause As faith cannot be both efficiens effecti effectum ejusdem â—ficientis nor be both the efficient and constitutive cause material or formal no more can it produce one and the same effect of Justification per modum instrumenti efficientis and per modum conditionis sine quâ non 2. Else you must feign the pardoning act to run thus I will pardon thee on condition thou wilt pardon thy self by beleeving as the instrument and not only on condition thou accept Christ 3. It belongeth to the pardoning instrument to conferre the right to the thing 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
Sober Pious and Friendly soever If when we are dead men shall reade Mr. Blake's Book that never read mine and there see it written that I said Sincerity is the new Rule or the rule of the new Covenant Can any blame them to believe it and report it of me as from him and say What shall I not beleeve such and such a man that reports it in express words But let this go with this conclusion If indeed I have spoken any such words I retract them as non-sense and when I finde them I shall expunge them If I have not patience is my duty and relief and I have long been learning that we must suffer from Godly and Friends as well as from ungodly and enemies and till I had learned that lesson I never knew what it was to live quietly and contentedly The rest of this Section hath answer enough already No doubt but sincere obedience consisteth in a faithfull endeavour to obey the whole preceptive part of Gods Law both natural and positive But no man can by it be denominated righteous nisi aequivocè but he that perfectly obeyeth in degree §. 37. Mr Bl. A Perfection of sufficiency to attain the end I willingly grant God condescending through rich grace to crown weak obedience in this sense our imperfection hath its perfectness otherwise I must say that our inherent righteousness is an imperfect righteousnesse in an imperfect conformity to the rule of righteousnesse and without this reference to the rule there is neither perfection nor imperfection in any action See D. Davenant disputing against Justification by inherent righteousnesse upon the account of the imperfection of it de instit habit p. 349. and how fully he was perswaded of the imperfection of this righteousnesse appears by sentences prefixt before two Treatises as may be seen in the margent §. 37. R.B. 1. YOur term otherwise is ambiguous If you mean that in some other respects you take righteousness to be imperfect so do I and that a little more then you acknowledge If you mean that in all other respects you take this righteousness to be imperfect why then do you wrong your Reader with equivocation in calling it Righteousness when you know that transcendental perfection is convertible with its Being 2. A natural perfection or imperfection actions are capable of without a relation to the Rule though that be nothing to our business yet you should not conclude so largely 3. Many a School Divine hath Written and Gibieâ—f at large that our actions are specified a fine and denominated Good or Evil and so perfect or imperfect a fine more specially and principally then a Lege But this requires more subtilty and accurateness for the decision then you or I in these loose Disputes do shew our selves guilty of As for what you say from Reverend Davenant I Reply 1. Do you not observe that I affirm that which you call Our righteousness inherent to be imperfect as well as Bishop Davenant and that in more respects then one yet one would think by your words that you had a minde to intimate the contrary 2. Yea I say more that in reference to the Law of works our works are no true righteousness at all And I think he that saith They are no righteousness saith as little for them as he that saith they are an imperfect righteousness Yet if the truth were known I do not think but both Davenant and you and I agree in sense and differ only in manner of speaking My sense is this Our obedience to the Law of God is so imperfect that we are not just but guilty and condemnable in the sense of the Law of works therefore speaking strictly we are not righteous at all in sensu forensi according to this Law but speaking improperly and giving the denomination à materia or ab accidente aliqua non a formâ so we may be said to have an imperfect legal righteousness while equivocally we call him just that is but comparatively less unjust then another For though righteousness in sensu forensi have no degrees yet unrighteousness hath many 3. And I suppose you know that Bishop Davenant doth not only say as much as I concerning the interest of works in Justification but also speaks it in the very same notions as I did If you have not observed it I pray reade him de Just Hab. Act. cap. 30. pag. 384. c. 31. p. 403 404 405. 570 571 572 633. And then I would ask you but this Question If the accusation charge us to have no right in Christ and Life because we died unbelievers and impenitent or rebels against Christ must not we be justified against that accusation by producing our faith repentance and sincere obedience it self and if so then which nothing more certain are not these then so farre our righteousness against that accusation to be pleaded And if it be not a true righteousness and metaphysically perfect and such as will perfectly vindicate us against the accusation of being prevalently and finally unbelievers impenitent or rebels against Christ there is no Justification to be hoped for from the Judge but condemnation to endless misery Moreover the Thesis that Davenant proves in the Chapter which you cite is inhaerentem justitiam non esse causam formalem justificationis nostrae coram Deo And if that be true then it is impossible that it should have the formal reason of righteousness in it For if there be vera forma there must needs be the formatum and he that hath true formall rigteousness must needs be thereby constituted Righteous or justified constitutivè and then he must needs be sentenced Just who is Just But then note that Davenant speaks of that universal righteousness whereby we are justified against the accusation of being sinners condemnable by the Law of works and here Christs satisfaction is our righteousness and not of that particular Righteousness whereby we must be justified against the accusation of finall non-performance of the conditions of the Covenant or Law of grace For there it is the performance of those conditions which must it self be our righteousness and so far justifie us Doctor Twisse against Doctor Jackson pag. 687. saith Yet I willingly grant that every sin is against Gods good will and pleasure as it signifieth his pleasure what shall be our duty to do which is nothing else but his commandment And it is as true that herein are no degrees every sin is equally against the Commandment of God I think I may with much more evidence of truth and necessity say it as I did of Personal Gospel-righteousness then he can do of sinne And so much be spoken of that Controversie §. 38. How farre unbelief and impenitency in professed Christians are Violations of the New Covenant R.B. Mr. Bl. pag. 245. c. 33. doth lay down a Corollary That Impenitence and Unbelief in professed Christians is a breach of Covenant Though I take that to be intended as
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
with men of saith not saving he doth me wrong For in the properest sense i. e. as if God were actually as it were obliged to such in the Covenant of Grace I never said it But how far such are in Covenant or under promise I have by necessary distinction explained before and I think it beseems not a serious Treatise of the Covenants wherein this Question is so largely of purpose handled to have confounded those several considerations and dispute so seriously before the Reader can tell about what The words which Mr. Bl. questioneth I confess are mine against Dr. Ward and I did not think in so gross an opinion Dr. Ward would have found any second to undertake that cause §. 40. Mr. Bl. 1. ALL that hath been said for the latitude of the Covenant may sitly be applyed in opposition to this Tenent for the like latitude of Baptism §. 40. R. B. THerefore did I say the more of the Covenant before to shew your confusion and mistake in that It is not every Covenant or Promise that Baptism is the Seal of §. 41. Mr. Bl. ALL the Absurdities following the restraint of the Covenant to the Elect to men of faith saving and justifying follow upon this restraint of interest in Baptism §. 41. R. B. WHat Absurdities follow such a restraint of it to sound believers as I have asserted I should be willing to know though with some labor I searched for it Bear with me therefore while I examine what you refer me to It is pag. 209. where you charge those Absurdities And the first is this 1. This restriction of the Covenant to shut out all the non-regenerate makes an utter confusion between the Covenant it self and the conditions of it or if the expression do not please the Covenant it self and the duties required in it between our entrance into Covenant and our observation of it or walking up in faithfulness to it All know that a bargain for a summe of money and the payment of that summe the covenant with a servant for labor and the labor according to this covenant are different things Faithful men that make a bargain keep it enter covenant and stand to it But the making and keeping the entering and observing are not the same and now according to this opinion Regeneration is our entrance into Covenant and Regeneration is our keeping of Covenant before Regeneration we make no Covenant after Regeneration we break no Covenant there is no such thing as Covenant-breaking All this makes an utter confusion in the Covenant Reply 1. I have seldom met with a complaint of confusion more unseasonably where the guilt of it in the plaintiffe is so visible as to marr all the work so much 2. I cannot give my judgment of the intolerableness and great danger of your mistake here manifested without unmannerliness I will therefore say but this It is in a very weightie point neer the foundation wherein to erre cannot be safe In my Aphorisms I gave my reasons pag. 265 for the contrarie It is a truth so far beyond all doubt that our own Covenanting is a principal part of the condition of the Covenant of Grace as that it is in other terms a great part of the substance of the Gospel 1. The conditions are imposed by God and to be performed by us the same act therefore is called our conditions as the performers and Gods conditions as the Imposer and Promiser giving his blessings onely on these imposed conditions Most properly they are called the conditions or Gods Covenant or Promise rather then of ours for our own Promise is the first part of them and our performance of that Promise but a secondary part For 2. Gods Covenant is a free gift of Christ and Life to the world on condition of their Acceptance this our Divines against the Papists on the Doctrine of merit have fully proved Onely this Acceptance must have these necessary modifications which may constitute it sutable to the quality of the object and state of the receiver It must be a Loving Thankfull Acceptance and it being the Acceptance of a Soveraign and Sanctifier it contains a Resolution to obey him Our Acceptance or Consent is our Covenanting and our faith So that our Covenanting with Christ and our faith is the same thing that is our accepting an offered Saviour on his terms Or a Consent that he be ours and we his on his terms And who knows not that this Faith or Covenanting or Consent is the condition by us to be performed that we may have right to Christ and Life offered 3. Indeed there is herewith joyned a promise for future duty but mark 1. what 2. and to what end 1. It is principally but a promise of the same consent to be continued which we already give and secondarily a promise of sincere obedience 2. It is not that these future promised acts shall be the condition of our first Justification or right to Christ but onely the condition of the continuance of our Justification it being certainly begun and we put into a state of favor and acceptance meerly on our first consent or covenanting that is believing or receiving Christ That all this is no strange thing that our own Covenant Act should be also the Primary condition of Gods Covenant may appear by your forementioned similitudes and all other cases wherein such Relations are contracted If a King will offer his Son in marriage to a condemned woman and a beggar on condition that she will but have him that is consent and so covenant and marry him here her covenanting consenting or marrying him is the performance of the condition on her part for obtaining her first Right in him and his but for the continuance of that Right is further requisite Primarily the continuance of that consent secondarily the addition of subjection and marriage-faithfulness Yet though consent begun and consent continued be both called consent and are the same thing it is only the beginning that is called marriage so is it only begun faith which is our marriage with Christ and constitutes us Regenerate or converted And therefore you do not well to talk of Regeneration being the keeping of our Covenant If by Regeneration you mean not Gods Act but our repenting and believing then it is our keeping Gods Covenant by performing the condition i. e. Our obeying him in entering his Covenant but it is not the keeping of our own Covenant for our making or entering Covenant is our principal condition on performance whereof we are justified yet in so doing we promise to continue that consent or faith and so the continuance is our Covenant-keeping As for your instances of the Covenant of paying money and doing work had I used such instances what should I have heard from those men that already charge me with giving too much to works in â—ustification you should have considered that our Covenant 1. is not principally to pay and to labor but to receive 2.
I imagined 2. As the Donor of Christ and Life and the Author of the Promise or Deed of gift and so Christ as Testator he hath made our sincere faith the condition saying If thou believe thou shalt be saved Hereby we are bound to believe as a necessary means to salvation This is but a sanction of the first obligation 3. The like may be said of the threatning He that believeth not shall be damned which God addeth as Legislator to this Law so that every man is bound to sound Believing as the necessarie condition of salvation before he doth consent himself or oblige himself to it even by an obligation which is ten thousand fold stronger then any that he is capable of laying on himself 3. It is also a very high mistake to think that our Covenanting or Consent which is our actual believing is none of our condition when it is the great and principal part of our condition yea all the condition of our begun Justification not taking the word Faith too narrowly You will perhaps say These are our conditions as subjects but not as Covenanters Reply They are our conditions as subjects called to Covenant as we are the persons to whom the Covenant is offered They are constituted by God as Donor Benefactor and Author of the Covenant or Promise and not meerly as Rector It belongeth to the Donor to determine of the conditions of his own gift on which they shall become due or not Yet doth God make no transactions with men but as with subjects and therefore even when he deals with us as Benefactor and Donor in free gifts it is still as Dominus Rector Benefaciens he lays not by his Dominion or Soveraigntie nor these Relations to us 4. For your instance of servants and souldiers they leave out the great part of the condition of the Covenant of Grace which is that we consent to be servants and souldiers The Relation must first be entered God must be taken for our God and Christ for our Redeemer Lord and Saviour the Holy Ghost for our Guide and Sanctifyer This is Faith and Covenanting This goes before working and fighting But this Covenanting is the great condition of Gods Covenant As when the forementioned Prince is offered in marriage with his Dignities and Riches to a condemned beggar as it is a gift and covenant propounded on his part and actually to be entered it is consent or marriage-covenanting on her part that is the condition yea and all the condition of her first right to him and his riches and honors So in your instance It is the servants consent or covenant to have such a man for his master and the souldiers consent and covenanting to have such a man for his General that is the condition on which one hath all his first right to the Priviledges of the family and the other to the Priviledges of the Armie Is not this consent necessarie in our present case If you would have spoke to the point you should have said thus No servant is tyed sincerely to consent or covenant to be a servant before he have received his earnest No souldier is tyed to consent or covenant truly to be a souldier till he be listed which are both plainly false Baptism is as the listing Consent which is saving Faith is the heart covenant prerequisite to listing and not the work to be done after except you speak of the continuance of consent Baptism is the solemnizing our marriage with Christ And it is a strange marriage wherein the woman doth only promise that she will begin hereafter to take that man for her husband but not at present Nay where such present consent is not Requisite is a feâ—gned or nominal or half-consent the condition on which a woman hath Right to the man and his estate and a full consent hereafter the thing that she is engaged to 5. In your minor But faith that is Justifying to accept Christ is the condition to which Baptism engageth either you mean only the continuance of that faith and that is true but not your meaning I think Or you mean the beginning of that faith as doubtless the foregoing words shew that you do and then why had we not one word tending to the proof which would in this place have been very acceptable to me I will anon make an argument of the contrarie You seem to me in all this to mistake the very formal nature of a condition as if it received its denomination from our promise to perform it when as by the consent of all Lawyers that I have read of it it is denominated from the determination of the Donor Testator or other Imposer and most evidently and unquestionably it is so in unequal contracts where one is the Benefactor and hath the absolute power of disposing his own favors §. 44. Mr. Bl. THat Faith upon which Simon Magus in the Primitive times was baptized is that which admitteth to Baptism Simon himself believed and was Baptized Act. 8.13 But Simons Faith â—ell short of saving and justifying §. 44. R. B COncedo totum sed desideratur Conclusio That may be said to admit to Baptism which so qualifieth the person as that we are bound to Baptize him as being one that seemeth sound in believing as Simon did But this is not Entituling or having Coram Deo à faedere Right to Baptism nor doth prove that it is not saving Faith which God in his Covenant makes the condition prerequisite to such a Right to Baptism §. 45. Mr. Bl. 6. IN Case only justifying Faith give admission to Baptism then none is able to baptize seeing this by none is discerned and to leave it to our charity affirming that we may admit upon presumption of a title when God denies I have spoken somewhat Chap. and I refer to Mr. Hudson in his Vindication whom learned Mr. Baxter so highly commends to shew the unreasonabless of it §. 45. R.B. 1. SEing you have read what I have said to Mr. Tombes against this Objection I shall take it as needless to say more till you confute it 2. I say not that onely justifying Faith gives Admission to Baptism I say that the seeming or Probable Profession of such a faith gives Admittance 3. Nor is it left to our Charity but imposed on us as a Duty to Baptize those that profess sound belief but whether the profession be probably serious or not our understanding and not our Charity must judge And if you go not that way too then it seems you would Baptize a man that should apparently jest or deride Christ under colour of professing which were to Accept that as a profession which is no profession For it is no further a profession then it seems to be serious and express what is in the heart 4. Though God deny the justness of the hypocrites Title in foro Dei yet he doth not deny it to be our duty to deal with them for their profession as
is as it were engaged to man in the Covenant of Grace and that it is dangerous to make God to be in actual Covenant with men in the state of nature though the conditional covenant may be made to them and though he have revealed his decree for the sanctifying his elect but he is supposed to dispence his mercies to the unregenerate freely as Dominus absolutus or as Rector supra leges and not by giving them a Legal or Covenant-right And indeed in my opinion the Transition is very easie from Mr. Blakes opinion to Arminianism if not unavoidable save by a retreat or by not seeing the connexion of the Consequents to the Antecedent For grant once that common Faith doth coram Deo give right to baptism and it is very easie to prove that it gives right to the end of baptism God having not instituted it to be an emptie sign to those that have true Right to it And it will be no hard matter to prove that it is some special Grace that is the end of Baptism at lest Remission of sin And so upon the good use of common Grace God should be in Covenant obliged to give them special Grace which is taken for Pelagianism §. 53. WHen I had Replyed thus far to Mr. Blake I was much moved in my minde to have Replyed to his answer to Mr. Firmin on the like subject and also to have then proved that the children have no Right to baptism except the immediate Parent be a believer for the sake of any of his Ancestors and that the children of Apostates and wilfull obstinate wicked livers should not be baptized as theirs and to have answered what Mr. Bl. hath said to the contrary and this meerly in love to the Truth lest the reputation of man should cloud it and in love to the Church and the lustre of the Christian name lest this fearful gap should let in that pollution that may make Christianitie seem no better then the other Religions of the world For I fear this loose Doctrine of Baptism will do more 〈◊〉 the pollution of the Church then others loose Doctrine of the Lords Supper or as much But I am very loth to go any further in Controversie then I shall be necessitated And if Mr. Firmin be living I conjecture by his writings that he is able easily to vindicate his own words Not that I have low thoughts of the abilities and worth of my dear and Reverend friend Mr. Blake but that I take his answers on those subjects to be very dilute si pace tanti viri ita dicam so great a disadvantage is an ill cause to the most learned man Mr. Firmin I know not any further then by his Book against Separation But in that Book I see so much Candor Ingenuitie Moderation Love to Peace and some convenient terms for Peace discovered that I am heartily sorrie that there are no more to second him and that his incitements to accommodation are no more laid to heart But the Peace-makers shall be blessed in the Kingdom of Peace how little soever they may succeed in this tumultuous world For as where envy and strife is contentious zeal there is confusion and every evil work so the fruit of Righteousness is sown in Peace of them that make Peace § 54. I Had thought also at the first view that it would have been necessary to have confuted Mr. Blakes 31. Chapt. when I found this Title A man in Covenant with God and received into the Vniversal Church Visible needs no more to give him accesss to and interest in particular Visible Churches But I know not whether he mean the access and interest of a stranger in passage or a Transient Member or of a fixed Member If of the latter I should have proved moreover that there is Necessary both his Cohabitation and his Consent to be a Member of that Church and his consent to submit to the particular Pastors of that Church as his Teachers and Spiritual Guides in the Lord. But I finde in the following pages Mr. Blake doth acknowledge all this himself I shall therefore pass on to some other subject only remembering Mr. Bl. that as it is not Number of Arguments but Weight that will carrie the Cause so it is not Number that I trust to and therefore if any one of those 26 Arguments foregoing be good though 25 be bad I must needs think the Cause bad which I argue against §. 55. Whether Faith and Repentance be Gods Works Mr Bl. CHap. 15. So Mr. Baxters Questionist qu. How do you make Faith and Repentance to be Conditions of the Covenant on our part seeing the bestowing of them is part of the condition on Gods part Can they be our Conditions and Gods too Answer c. And I shall not stand to distinguish of an Absolute and Conditional Covenant and so making the whole in the Absolute Covenant to be Gods and in the Conditional this part to be ours which I know not whether exactly understood the Scripture will bear but in plain term◠deny that they are Gods Conditions and affirm them to be ours I know what God speaks in his Word concerning these works that He will write his Law in our hearts and put it into our inward parts that he will take away the heart of stone and give an heart of flesh which implyes this work of which we speak I know likewise what in particular is affirmed of Christ that he is the Author and Finisher of our Faith c. Yet all this rises not up higher to make them formally Gods acts and not ours Whose acts they be his Conditions they are this is evident But they are our acts we Believe and Repent it is not God that Believes it is not God that Repents c. Faith and Repentance are mans works not Gods works which man in Covenant does respective to salvation in the Covenant tendered But the Apostle some may say in the next words tells us That it is God that works the Will and the Deed. There he seems to take them from us and ascribes the formality of them to God In this Cooperation of Gods whether they be formally our works or Gods let Isaiah determine Isa 26.12 Thou hast wrought all our works in us When God hath wrought it the work is ours we have the reward c. § 55 R. B. MR Blakes business here is to confute the answer that I gave to that objection A brief Reply may easily satisfie this confutation 1. I did explain in what sense these were called Covenants shewing that that which is called the Absolute Covenant is in some respect no part of Gods Legislative Will and so doth not jus conferre but only part of his Decretive Will revealed but that in other respects it belongs to the Legislative Will and may be called an absolute promise And so the word Conditions applyed to God is taken for the thing promised improperly called a condition but applied
read a Remonstrant that would say that the work is so ours as that it is only the power that is vouchsafed us by God I conclude therefore that you have not confuted my answer 1. In that you have not disproved the absolute Promise of the first special Grace 2. You have not disproved God to be the Author of our Faith so as that it is his work 3. If you had yet Believing which is our work is not the same thing with giving Faith or moving us to believe which I say is Gods Work §. 56. Of the Life Promised and Death threatned to Adam in the first Law Mr. Bl. I Finde no material difference in the Conditions on Gods part in these Covenants Life is promised in both in Case of Covenant-keeping and Death is threatned in both in case of Covenant-breaking Some indeed have endeavored to finde a great difference in the Life Promised in the Covenant of Works and the Life that is promised in the Covenant of Grace as also in the Death that is threatned in the one and in the other and thereupon move many and indeed inextricable difficulties What Life man should have enjoyed in case Adam had not fallen and what Death man should have dyed in case Christ had not been promised From which two endlessly more by way of Consectary maybe drawn by those that want neither wit nor leisure to debate them In which the best way of satisfaction and avoidance of such puzzeling mazes is to enquire what Scripture means by Life which is the good in the Covenant promised and what by Death which is the evil threattned Now for the first Life contains all whatsoever conduces to true Happiness to make man blessed in Soul and body All good that Christ purchases and Heaven enjoyes is comprised under it in Gospel expressions c. On the contrary under death is comprised all that is injurious to man or mankinde that tends to his misery in Soul and body The damnation of Hell being called death the uttermost of evils being the separation of Soul and body from God Joh. 8.51 1 Joh. 3.14 Sin which leads to it and is the cause of it is called death in like manner Eph. 2.1 And the separation of Soul from the body being called Death sickness plagues are so called in like manner Exod. 10.17 Now happiness being promised to man in Covenant only indefinitely under that notion of Life without limit to this or that way of happiness in this or that place God is still at liberty so that he make man happy where or however to continue happiness to him and is not tyed up in his engagement either for earth or heaven And therefore though learned Camero in his Tract de triplici faedere Thes 9. make this difference between the Covenant of works and the Covenant of Grace In the Covenant of Works which he calls nature Life was promised and a most blessed Life but an animal life in Paradise in the Covenant of Grace a life in Heaven and Spiritual And Mr. Baxter in his Aphor. of Justification p. 5. saith That this Life promised was only the continuance of that state that Adam was then in in Paradise is the opinion of most Divines Yet with submission to better Judgements I see not grounds for it seeing Scripture no way determines the way and kinde c. And indeed there are strong probabilities Heaven being set out by the name of Paradise in Christs speech to the theif on the Cross and in Pauls vision c. §. 56. R. B. 1. YOur opinion in this point is moderate and I think sound I have nothing therefore to say to you but about our different expressions and therefore excuse me if I be short for I love not that work I think your judgement and mine are the same 2. Only remember that it is Mr. Blake also that hath these words pag. 74. The Conditions on mans part in the Covenant of Works were for mans preservation in statu quo in that condition in which he was created to hold him in Communion with God which was his happiness he expected not to be bettered by his obedience either respective to happiness no more is promised then in present he had nor yet in his Qualifications respective to his conformitie to God in Righteousness and true holiness What improvement he might have made of the Habit infused by the exercise of obedience I shall not determine but no change in Qualifications was looked after or given in Promise so far Mr. Blake If the Reader cannot reconcile Mr. Blake and me let him reconcile Mr. Blake with himself and the work is done 3. But I confess that upon more serious consideration of several passages in the New Testament naming and describing the work of Redemption I am ready to think it far more probable that Adam was not created in Patria but in Via not in the highest perfection which he should expect but in the way to it But whether God would have given it him in the same place that he was in or in some other called Heaven upon a remove I take as Mr. Bl. doth to be unrevealed and undetermined in the Promise So that I could finde in my heart to fall a confuting the same opinion in Mr. Blake expressed in these last words which he confuteth in me but that his former save me the labor 4. I confess also that I spoke rashly in saying that it was the opinion of most Divines seeing it so hard a matter to know which way most go in the point I also confess that the judgement of Camero Mr. Ball Mr. Gataker c. swayed much with me but the silence of the text in Gen. much more but I had not so well weighed several Texts in the New Testament as I ought which describing Redemption give some more light into the point The same I say concerning the qualitie of the Death threatned 5. I agree to Mr. Blakes first conclusion that the thing is indeterminate or at lest hard for us to know but I cannot reconcile his premises with that conclusion much less with this his latter speech p. 74. For if as he saies the Life promised was all whatsoever conduces to true happiness to make men blessed in soul and body by conducing to I suppose he meant constituting of then either the Caelestial Degree of Grace and Glory conduces not to that happiness and then not to ours who have no greater natural capacitie or else I see not how it can be said that this greater blessedness was not Promised Doubtless Adam had not in present possession so great a measure of holiness so confirmed a state of Holiness or Glory nor so great and full a fruition of God as Christ hath given us a sure hope of in the Gospel And therefore though he say God is at liberty for the place and way yet that is nothing to the kinde and measure 6. Observe that the words of mine which Mr. Bl.
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
leave to Judge those Brethren that oppose me as fallible and subject to error as all the Primitive Fathers were and therefore that I may be no more blamed or thought singular for contradicting them then they are for contradicting the Primitive Church I know as Austin saith de Civitate Dei li. 22. c. 30. Servandi gradus erant Divini muneris ut primum daretur liberum arbitrium quo non-peccare posset homo novissimum quo peccare non posset atque illud ad comparandum meritum hoc ad recipiendum praemium pertineret And the case of the Intellect being the same we must stay til this time of Reward be come before we shall receive our non posse errare I know no Brother that opposeth me doth pretend to Infallibility All that I desire by my far greater advantage of humane Testimony is but to expugn prejudice that I may stand on even ground with them that contend with me And could I but prevail for this that the cause might be decided by meer Scripture-reason and humane Authority wholly stand by and the Reader could but impartially consider things without being byassed to any side or party as if he knew not what any man else doth judge of it I should then make little doubt of the good issue of the Controversie The most that I meet with that explain against my judgement are they that confess that they know not what it is or else apprehend it to be what it is not but whatever it is some that they value are against it and that is it that satisfieth them that I am in an error I do unfeignedly desire that in dark Controversies beyond their reach the unlearned people would more regard the generality of sober Godly Divines then any single and singular Teacher yea though it fall out that he be in the Truth as long as the Evidence of that Truth is out of their reach But this may not encourage any to shut their eyes or to neglect to search after the Evidence which they might discern much less may it excuse such unfaithfulness in Divines themselves nor yet may it encourage any to captivate their judgement to a party against the general judgement of the Church For if I were on one side and all the Divines in England on the other there is yet the same reason to prefer all the first Churches before all them as there is to prefer all them before me In a word I shall ever think him more culpably singular who differeth from Christ and his Apostles and all his Church for 1200 or 1400 years then he that differeth from any party now living and differeth not from them forementioned And how the case stands in this between me and those Reverend Divines that oppose me in the foresaid points of difference I am heartily content to refer to any sober impartial Reader that takes not things on trust from others nor judgeth of the Doctrine of antient writers by any imperfect dismembred parcels Georgius Calixtus Epitom Theolog. Moral pag. 463. INterrogati quae fides nostra quae doctrina respondemus eam esse fidem doctrinam nostram quam Complectitur symbolum Apostolicum symbolum Nicaenum Constantinopolitanum Athanasianum Anathematismi Ephesini Confessio Chalcedonensis Quae Nestorianorum Eutichianorum reliquiis quinta sexta synodi opposuerunt Quae item Pelagianis Africana plenaria sive ut vocari solet milevitana synodus Arausicana secunda synodus opposuerunt Haec symbola hae confessiones declarationes continent non modo quae Credere sine quibus fidem assensum prabere hominem Christianum oportet sine quibus creditis atque cognitis salvari nequit sed illis etiam qui haec ipsa docendo tractant aliis exponunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quam teneant praescribunt Quae autem hisce symbolis confessionibus declarationibus comprehenduntur è Sacra Scriptura hausta sunt quippe in iis quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi c. Denique exercemus nos ad conscientiam habendam sine offensa apud Deum homines semper Lutherus referente Hopffnero Saxon. Evangel p. 110. NIhil pestilentius in Ecclesia doceri potest quam si ea quae necessaria non sunt necessaria fiant Hac enim tyrannide conscientiae illaqueantur Libertas fidei extinguitur mendacium pro veritate Idolum pro Deo Abominatio pro sanctitate colitur I conclude with that of Rup Meldenius elsewhere once before cited Paraenes citante C. Bergio F. 2. Verbo dicam si nos servaremus in Necessariis Unitatem in Non-necessariis Libertatem in Utrisque charitatem optimo certe loco essent res nostrae Ita fiat Amen FINIS POSTSCRIPT HAving perceived by a friend that perused these Papers since the Printing of them that the n. 5th § 11. p. 25. against Mr. Blake is through too great brevity like to be misunderstood I thought meet to adde this Explication I distinguish between the Real Operations and Mutations on mans soul by Objects and the Conveyance of Right to several Benefits by the Covenant of God It is not the former that I speak of in that place I confess that as the Apprehension of one of Gods Attributes makes one effect on the soul and the apprehension of another makes another effect so the apprehension of Christs Kingdome Righteousness Death Obedience Intercession Judgement c. do make also their several Impressions according to the Nature of the thing apprehended But I utterly deny that it is so in Conveying Right to these as much as I deny that Justification is Sanctification or a Real Change of our Qualities as it is This therefore is my Argument If the Apprehension of Christs Righteousness and no other Act should strictly be the Justifying Act of Faith and that eo nomine because it is the object of that apprehension which is the matter of our Justification then it would follow 1. That the Apprehension of nothing else is the Justifying Act. 2. And that we have Right to every other particular Mercy eo nomine because we apprehend that Mercy and so our Right to every particular Benefit of Christ were Received by a distinct Act of Faith But the Consequent is false Therefore so is the Antecedent The minor only requires proof which is proved by the tenour of the Covenant of Grace which Giveth us Christ and with him all things He that hath the Son hath Life He that believeth on him shall not perish nor come into Condemnation As many as Received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God So that one entire faith which is the Receiving of Christ as he is offered that is as our Saviour and King is the Condition of our Right to all particular Benefits Godliness hath the promise of this life and that to come It is a womans taking such a man for her Husband that Gives