their own conditions I think the solidity and great necessity of all these distinctions is beyond Dispute These things being thus 1. What confusion is it to talk of the moral Law being the only Rule when it is not one thing that is called the moral Law and who knows what you mean 2. How strange a thing is it to my ears that you even you should so wholly own this and so heartily profess that you take the Moral Law for the only Rule For suppose you take it for the preceptive part of the Law of nature only as I think you do 1. That is but part of that very Law of nature Doth not the Law of nature as well as the positive Law determine de Debito paenae as well as de Debito officii and is a Rule of punishment as well as duty 2. Or if you took it for the whole Law of nature is that the only Rule 1. What say you for matter of duty to the positive Precepts of the Gospel of Baptism the Lords Supper the Lords day the Officers and Government of the Church c. Is the Law of nature the only Rule for these If you say They are reducible to the second Commandment I demand 1. What is the second Commandment for the Affirmative part but a general precept to worship God according to his Positive Institution And doth this alone suffice Doth it not plainly imply that there are and must be positive Laws instituting a way of worship 2. Do you take the Precept de genere to be equivalent to the Precepts de speciebus or to be a sufficient Rule without them If the Moral Law or Law of Nature be to you the only Rule and a perfect Rule then you need no other And if God had only written the ten Commandments or only said in general Thou shalt worship God according to his positive Institutions would it have been your duty to have Baptized administred the Lords Supper c. Doth the general Precept constitute this particular Ordinance as my duty If not as nothing more certain then the general Law is not the only Rule nor sufficient in omni parte though sufficient in suo genere ad partem propriam for the constitution of Worship Ordinances Church Offices c. or acquainting us with our duty therein Moreover did Christ in Instituting these Ordinances and Officers do any more then was done before or not If no more 1. It is superfluous 2. Shew where it was done before 3. Sure the fourth Commandment did not at once command both the seventh day of the week and the first If more then the former was not sufficient nor is now the only Rule Moreover doth not the Scripture call Christ a Lawgiver and say The Law shall go out of Zion c. Isa 2.3 And is he not the Anointed King of the Church and therefore hath Legislative power And will he not use the principal part of his Prerogative 2. I think the Moral Law taken either for the Law given to Adam or written in Tables of stone is not a sufficient Rule to us now for beleeving in Jesus Christ no nor the same Law of nature as still in force under Christ For a general command of beleeving all that God revea◠〈◊〉 is not the only Rule of our faith but the particular revelation and precept are part And a general command to submit to what way God shall prescribe for our justification and salvation is not the only Rule but that particular prescript is part And a general command of receiving every offered benefit is not the only or sufficient Rule for receiving Christ without the Gospel-offer of him and his benefits 3. And I suppose you grant that as mans soul hath an understanding and a will the former being a passage to the later in the former practical receptions being but initiate and imperfect and in the later perfected so Laws have their prefaces declaring the grounds and occasions of them oft times and so the Laws of God have their Narratives Histories and Doctrines concerning the grounds the subject the occasion c. as well as the more essential parts viz. Precepts and Sanction These I spoke not of before in the distinctions Now do you indeed think that the Law of nature or what ever you now mean by the old Rule and Moral Law is the sufficient and only Rule of Knowledge Judgement and Faith I take it for granted that you will acknowledge the assenting act of faith to be in the understanding and that the Word of God is the rule of this assent Had you in the old Rule or Moral Law a sufficient and only Rule for your faith in the Article of Christs Incarnation Birth Life Innocency Miracles Death Burial Resurrection Assension full Dominion in his humane nature c. Was this Article in the Creed before Christs coming Except ye beleeve that I am he ye shall die in your sinnes Besides matter of faith is also matter of duty for it is our duty to beleeve all these Truths But I think it was then no mans duty to believe that this Jesus the son of Mary was the Saviour before he was Incarnate or to believe that Christ was Dead Ascended c. Therefore that which you call the Old Rule is not as you say the Only Rule of our Duty in Beleeving 4. But what if all this had been left out and you had proved the Moral Law the only Rule of duty doth it follow that therefore it is the only Rule Sure it is not the only Rule of rewarding For if you take the Moral Law for the meer preceptive part of the Law of nature then it is no Rule at all of rewarding for it is the promise and not the precept that doth make due the reward And if you take the moral Law for the whole Law of nature it is a very great Dispute whether it be Regula pramiandi at all much more as to that great reward which is now given in the Law of grace by Christ your self deny it pag. 74. I dare not say that if we had perfectly obeyed Everlasting Glory in Heaven had been naturally our due And for Remission of sin and the Justification of a sinner and such like they are such mercies as I never heard the Law of nature made the only Rule of our right to them 5. The same I may say of the Rule of punishment The privation of a purchased offered Remission and Salvation is one part of the penalty of the new Law of which the Moral Law can scarce be said the only Rule None of them that were bidden shall taste of the Supper 6. But the principal thing that I intend is that the Moral Law is not the only Rule what shall be the condition of Life or Death and therefore not the only Rule according to which we must now be denominated and hereafter sentenced Just or Unjust For if the accuser say He hath not performed
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
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
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
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
He is set out a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3.24 not through faith in his command It is the blood of Christ that cleanseth all sin and not the Soveraignty of Christ These confusions of the distinct parts of Christs Mediatorship and the speciall offices of faith may not be suffered Scripture assignes each its particular place and work Soveraignty doth not cleanse us nor doth blood command us Faith in his blood not faith yielding to his Soveraignty doth Justifie us §. 1. R. B. THis is a Point of so great moment in my eyes that I resolve to begin with it I doubt not but the difference between you and me is only about the bare methodizing of our Notions and not de Substantia rei But I doubt lest your doctrine being received by common heads according to the true importance of your expressions may do more against their salvation then is yet well thought on And that not per accidens but from its proper nature supposing the impression of the soul to be but answerable to the objective doctrinal seal I am no friend to the confusion that you here speak against and I am glad to find you so little in love with it as to pass your judgement that it is not to be suffered For now I rest assured that you will not be offended when here or hereafter I shall open your guiltiness of it and that you will not be unwilling of what may tend to your cure These two or three necessary distinctions I must first here premise before I can give a clear answer to your words 1. I distinguish still between constitutive Justification or Remission by the Gospel grant or Covenant called by most Justificatio Juris and Justification per sententiam Judicis 2. I distinguish between constitutive Legal Justification as begun and as continued or consummate 3. Between the Physical operation of Christ and his Benefits on the intellect of the Beleever per modum objecti apprehensi as an intelligible species and the moral conveyance of Right to Christ and his Benefits which is by an act of Law or Covenant-donation 4. Between these two questions What justifieth ex parte Christi and What justifieth or is required to our Justification ex parte peccatoris 5. Between the true efficient causes of our Justification and the meer condition sine qua non cum quâ 6. Between Christs Meriting mans Justification and his actual justifying him by constitution or sentence Hereupon I will lay down what I maintain in these Propositions which some of them shall speak further then the present Point in Question for a preparation to what followeth Prop. 1. Christ did Merit our Justification or a power to justifie not as a King but by satisfying the justice of God in the form of a servant Prop. 2. Christ dotn justifie Constitutivè as King and Lord viz. ut Dominus Redemptor i. e. quoad valorem rei he conferreth it ut Dominus gratis benefaciens but quoad modum conditionalem conferendi ut Rector Benefactor For it is Christs enacting the new Law or Covenant by which he doth legally pardon or confer Remission and constitute us Righteous supposing the condition performed on our part And this is not an act of Christ as a Priest or Satisfier but joyntly ut Benefactor Rector Prop. 3. Christ doth justifie by sentence as he is Judge and King and not as Priest Prop. 4. Sentential Justification is the most full compleat and eminent Justification that in Law being quoad sententiam but virtual Justification though quoad constitutionem debiti relationis it be actual Justification Prop. 5. Faith justifieth not by receiving Christ as an object which is to make a real impression and mutation on the intellect according to the nature of the species I say To justifie is not to make such a real change Though some joy◠with the Papists in this and tell me that as the Divine Attributes make their several moral Impressions on the soul according to their several natures so do the satisfaction and merits of Christ apprehended procure comfort and joy and a justifying sentence to be pronounced in the soul it self and so the apprehension of Christs Soverainty causeth our subjection which last is true Prop. 6 Faith therefore can have no Physical Causation or Efficiency in justifying seeing that the work to be done by us is not nosmetipsos Justificare in whole or in part but only Jus acquirere ad Beneficium gratis sed conditionaliter collatum It is a Relative change that is made by Justification and not a Real or Physical Prop. 7. The Legal formal interest or conducibility of Faith to our Justification cannot therefore be any other then that of a Condition in the proper Law-sense as the word Condition is used viz. that species of conditions which they call Voluntariae vel Potestativae and not Casuales vel Mixtae Prop. 8. Scripture doth not say that I can finde that Faith justifieth but that we are justified by Faith I therefore use the later phrase rather then the former both because it is safest to speak with the Scripture and because the former speech seemeth to import an Efficiency but the later frequently imports no more then a meer condition Yet I will not quarrell with any that speaks otherwise nor refuse to speak in their phrase while I dispute with them as long as I first tell them my meaning Prop. 9. Though ex parte Christi our several changes proceed from his several Benefits and parts of his Office exercised for us yet ex parte nostri i.e. fidei it is one entire apprehension or receiving of Christ as he is offered in the Gospel which is the Condition of our interest in Christ and his several Benefits and the effect is not parcelled or diversified or distinguished from the several distinct respects that faith hath to its object Christ meriteth Remission for us as Satisfier of Justice and he actually justifieth us as Benefactor King and Judge and he teacheth us as Prophet and ruleth us as King The real mutations here on us receive their diversification partly from our faith because there faith doth efficere or causare As we learn of Christ because we Beleeve him or Take him for our Teacher We obey him because we Take him for our King c. But it is not so with the Conveyance of meer Right or Title to Christ and his Benefits Faith doth not obtain Right to Remission and Justification distinctly as it receiveth his Righteousness or himself as Priest and so Right to the Priviledges of Christs Government distinctly as it taketh him as King nor Right to Adoption as it taketh him as a Father nor Right to Glory as it taketh him as Glorifier no more then all inferiour benefits as Title to Magistracy Ministry Health House Lands c. proceed and are diversified by the divers aspects of our faith on Christ The true Reason of which is this
respecting not only One or Some but All Commandments which is called a perfection of parts we might readily assent to it To which I Reply 1. Your terms are unâ—outh to me but I will do my best to guess at your meaning A perfection of the subject is perfectio essentialis vel accidentalis The former â—s no more but â—sse subjectum vere propriè The later may be variously taken according to the variety of accidents But certain I am that the subject is imperfect quod ad perfectionem accidentalem And therefore in this large expression you seem to say much more then I. You and I who are the subjects of Righteousness are imperfect though perfectly subjects 2. That which you call here perfectio subjecti is nothing but the truth of the immediate subject as I understand you Justitia est vel causae vel personae vel saltem considerata vel ut causae vel ut personae Causa est subjectum proximum Persons est subjectum primum principale Justitia causae est vel actionum vel habituum aut dispositionum Perfecti sunt habitus dispositiones actiones vel perfectione essentiali Transcendentali ita perfecti sunt quia vere sunt verè sunt tales vel perfectione accidentali ita aliquo modo perfecti alio imperfecti sunt It seems therefore that you here say as much at least as I for the perfection of the matter of our inherent Righteousness if not more for I am sure you speak more unlimitedly 3. I do charitably conjecture that when you speak of a perfection of the object you do not mean as you speak but you mean a perfection of our Acts as they respect the object extensively for whether you include or exclude intension I know not Here must I distinguish between objects of absolute necessity and so of the acts about those objects which a man cannot be justified or saved without and 2. Objects of less necessity and so acts which its possible to be justified and saved without In regard of the former I confess our acts may be said to be Truly acts that are exercised about such objects if you will call that perfection as in a larger sense you may But as to the later I acknowledge no such perfection And therefore for that which you call A perfection of parts I acknowledge that every righteous man hath a perfection of the essential parts that is he wants them not but not of the integral alwaies much less of accidents which are improperly called parts Next you repeat some of my words and then adde All which as it is here held out is new to me and I must confess my self in ignorance all over Reply I cannot help that but I will do towards it what I can that it may be none of my fault and therefore will let you know my meaning And in opening the sense and nature of Perfection I cannot give you more of my minde in a narrow room then Schibler hath laid down in Metaph. l. 1. c. 11. Perfectum est cui ad essentiam nihil deest Scaliger Exercit. 140. p. 470. Omne quod est sibi est bonum totum perfectum It is a Metaphisical Transcendental Perfection that I speak of which hath no contrary in Being which consisteth in the presence of all things necessary to Being and that only of an inferiour derived Being such as the creature is for we meddle not with the infinite Divine Being or perfection Nor do we take it in a comparative sense but in an absolute this being a Righteousness perfect in its kinde though a more perfect kinde accidentally may be found out I take it rather nominaliter then participaliter but still remember that I take it not de perfectione accidentali sed essentiali And therefore I still maintain that in several accidental respects our Righteousness is imperfect Now to know how our Righteousness is essentially perfect let us consider what is essential to it It s form is a Relation of our actions and dispositions immediatly and our selves remotely as compared with the Law or Rule This Law besides the constitution of the reward and punishment considered in themselves of which we now speak not doth 1. Constitute I mean efficiently determine what shall be our duty in general 2. It determineth more specially what part of this duty shall be the condition of our Justification and salvation sine qua non When we come to be judged at Gods barre he that hath performed the condition shall be justified though he have omitted much of the other duty but all that have not performed the condition shall be condemned But remember of what it is that this is the condition viz. of the new Law of grace whose office is to make over to us Free remission of sins and salvation through the satisfaction and merits of Christ and not the condition of that Law which gives the reward directly for the work Take up altogether then and you will see that 1. Righteousness is formally a relation 2. And that not of our Actions or dispositions to the meer precept of the Law determining of duty as such commonly called the moral Law but 1. to the Law as determining of the condition of life or death 2. to the promise and threatning of that Law which are joyned to the condition So that to be righteous signifieth quoad legem novam these two things 1. Non obligatus ad paenam cui debetur praemium 2. Qui conditionem impunitatis praemii praestitit The first question in judgement being An sit obligatus ad paenam vel non an praemium sit debitum therefore the former is our first and principal righteousness and here to be pleaded But before the first question can be determined the second must be raised and resolved Utrum praestitit conditionem And here the second is our Righteousness conditionis praestatio by which we must answer the accusation Conditionem non praestitit That is He lived and died an unbeliever or impenitent So that 3. You see that our first Righteousness Non reatus paenae vel jus ad impunitatem ad praemium as it requireth Christs perfect satisfaction as a medium to it by which all the charge of the Law of works must be answered so it requires our performance of the condition of the Law of grace as another medium by which Christ and his benefits are made ours and by which the false accusation of being unbelievers and impenitent and so to be condemned by the Law of grace it self as having no part in Christ must be answered and we justified against it 4. It is not only the form of our righteousness that is transcendenter perfect but also the matter as such as it is the matter that is the subject actions and dispositions are subjects truly capable of that relation All this is no more but that it is a true Righteousness and not
the word Righteousness materially without relation to any Rule is as much as to say We may denominate a materia sine forma The form is relative If you mean We may denominate that which hath a form from the matter and not from the form then I Reply 1. Then you must not denominate properly and logically 2. And then you must not call it Righteousness except you mean ludere aequivocis and speak de Justitia particulari ethica qua suum cuique tribuimus when we are speaking de Justitia Legali Civili Forensi called by the Schoolmen Justitia universalis in our case I am not of the Papists minde that make our Righteousness to be our new qualities and confound Justitiam Sanctitatem inde Justificationem Sanctificationem §. 31. Mr Bl. ANd in such consideration I do not know how there can be perfection or imperfection either in holiness or righteousness It is as they come up to or fall short of the Rule that they have the denomination of perfection or imperfection §. 31. R.B. 1. AT the first view the first sentence seemed so strange to me that I thought it meetest to say nothing because it is scarce capable of any apt answer but what will seem sharp or unmannerly For that which you say you may consider is something or nothing If something and yet not capable of perfection or imperfection it is such a something as the world never knew till now But upon second thoughts I finde that de justitia your words may be born For it is nothing that you speak of Legal Righteousness not related to the Law or Rule is Nothing And Nothing cannot be more perfect or less nisi negativè But that holiness taken for spiritual habits and acts can have neither perfection or imperfection or that they are capable of no perfection or imperfection in any other sense but as related nor yet in any Relations to God or the person dedicating save only in the relation to the Rule all these for the first reason shall have no answer but a recital §. 32. Mr Bl. PAul's Gospel frame whether you will call it righteousness or holiness is set out I am sure Rom. 7. full of imperfection yet all this as in reference to the Rule as is answered or fell short in conformity to it vers 22. I delight in the Law of God after the inner man §. 32. R. B. 1. IS not Righteousness or Holiness as Scriptural as Logical as plain a term and as fit for Disputants as Gospel-frame Till I know whether by Gospel-frame you mean Habits Acts Relations and what Relations or what else I shall pass it as uncapable of a better Reply 2. Did not I acknowledge expresly as much imperfection as you here affirm of Paul â—s frame Why then do you intimate by your arguing as if I did not 3. There is a twofold Rule or action of the Law which our Habits and Actions do respect as I have oft said The first is the Precept determining of Duty simply This all our Actions and Habits come short of and therefore no man hath a Righteousness consisting in this conformity The second is the promise or that act going along with the promise whereby God determineth of the condition This is twofold One of the Law of Nature and Works and according to this no man is Righteous for the condition and the duty are of the same extent it being obedience gradually perfect that is here the condition The other is of the Law of Grace which determineth what shall be the condition of our Right to Christ and Life Paul never complaineth of an imperfection of Essence of this last It is of the former that he speaks These necessary things should not be hidden by confounding the several Rules or Offices of Gods Law which so apparently differ §. 33. Mr Bl. ANd whereas a charge of ignorance is laid even upon learned Teachers that commonly understand the word Righteousness and Righteous as it refers to the old Rule I profess my self to have little of their Learning but I am wholly theirs in this ignorance I know no other Rule but the old Rule the Rule of the Moral Law that iâ— with me a Rule a perfect Rule and the only Rule §. 33. R B. EIther I am an incompetent judge through partiality or else you had done but the part of a friend yea of a candid adversary to have taken in the rest of my words which must make up the sense which were these As if the godly were called Righteous besides their imputed righteousness only because their sanctification and good works have some imperfect agreement to the Law of works I pray let the word only be remembred 2. It is but in this one point that I charge them with Ignorance And who is not ignorant in more points then one If it be so proud and arrogant a speech as some other Brethren have affirmed it to be then every man is proud and arrogant that differs from another and disputeth the difference For I cannot differ from any man unless I suppose him to Erre And doubtless every man is so farre Ignorant as he Erreth Must I then differ from none yea from no Learned Divines Why then when one affirmeth and another denieth I must be of both sides for fear of censuring one side as Ignorant or Erroneous 3. I confess I was not well acquainted with the genius of many of my Reverend and truly Honoured Brethren I thought that no godly man would have taken himself wronged if a man told him he had Error no more then to tell him he had sin I took it for granted that humanum est errare and that we know but in part and that sanctifying grace had so farre destroyed pride and made the soul apprehensive of its imperfection that at least men of eminent godliness could have endured patiently to hear that they are not omniscient nor infallible and that they have some ignorance with their eminent knowledge and why not in this point as well as another If any think that I arrogate that knowledge to my self which I deny to them I reply So I do in every case wherein I differ from any man living For if I thought not my judgement right it were not indeed my judgement and if I thought not his opinion wrong I did not differ from him But if they will affirm that therefore I do either vilifie them or prefer my self in other things I hope they will bring better proof of their affirmation For my own part I unfeignedly profess my self conscious of much more ignorance then ever I charged on any of my Brethren in the Ministry yea I must profess my self ignorant in a very great part of those Controversies which are most commonly and confidently determined by my Brethren I speak not all this as to Mr Bl. but to other Brethren that have made so strange an exposition of this one word and of one more
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
therefore God made man Or thus All men on earth are sinners I am a man on earth therefore I am a sinner In all these if you seal the major proposition or affirm it true you do indeed though not in terms affirm or seal the conclusion morally The confession that you say I make reacheth no higher But observe that its only morally that I say you may be said to say or seal the conclusion because unquestionable naturals are presupposed in Morals and Legals §. 66. Mr. Bl. HE that Believeth is Justified and shall be saved is his major Proposition This he saith is sealed unquestionably when indeed I have ever thought and yet think that it is not at all sealed Sacraments seal not to the truth of any general Proposition but with particular application as they are dispensed so they seal but they are applyed particularly Take Eat c. This Mr. Baxter seeth pag. 69. and therefore in that absolute universal Proposition he finds a particular Conditional Promise to which he saith God sealeth If thou believe I do pardon thee and will save thee §. 66. R. B. ALL this is answered sufficiently already Only observe that by shall be saved and I will save thee I mean but shall have or I will give thee present Right to salvation For the continuance of that Right hath more then Faith for its condition §. 67. Mr. Bl. THat it sealeth not to the truth of the minor Proposition But I believe he says is beyond dispute giving in his reasons It should seal then to that which is not written for no scripture saith that I do believe so certainly Sacraments do seal they seal to that which is not directly written they seal with particular application but the man to whom they are applyed hath not his name in scripture written they seal to an individual person upon the Warrants of a general Promise though I do not say that Proposition is sealed yet me thinks this reason is scarce cogent §. 67. R. B. YOu deny not my assertion but argue against the reason of it as before by telling us what you thought so here by affirming the contrary certain you attempt the confutation of mine To your instance I give these two returns 1. It is equivocation when our question is of sealing to a thing as the subjectum obsignatum for to instance in sealing to a person as the finis cui The seal that is to application as an end not to application as the subject sealed 2. But if you respect not the person as the end of application but as the party expressed in the Promise which is sealed then I say If you can prove that the universal Proposition doth not in sense contain the singulars so that this singular If thou believe thou shalt be saved be not in Moral Law sense contained in this universal All that believe shall be saved the Law supposing them all to be men and sinners then I will prove that God doth not properly seal to the singulars But till then I suspend §. 68. Mr. Bl. MR Baxter sayes The great question is whether they seal to the Conclusion as they do to the major Proposition To which he answers No directly and properly it doth not If the Proposition seems directly to prove the Conclusion then that which directly confirms any Proposition in a rightly formed Syllogism confirms the Conculsion If the Conclusion be not sealed then no Proposition is sealed or else the Syllogism is ill-framed §. 68. R. B. TThis is too new Doctrine to be received without one word of proof Doth he that sealeth the major of this following Syllogism seal the Conclusion All that truly Receive Christ are the Sons of God and shall be saved Judas did truly receive Christ therefore Judas was the Son of God and shall be saved I think both Premises must be true before the Conclusion will thence be proved true And it is not sealed by God when it is false §. 69. Mr. Bl. REasons are given This Conclusion is nowhere written in Scripture and therefore is not properly the object of Faith whereas the seals are for the confirmation of our Faith To which I say It is written Virtually though not expresly That I shall rise in Judgement is nowhere written yet it is of Faith that I shall rise and when I have concluded Faith in my heart as well as Reason in my Soul knowing my self to be a Believer as I know my self to be a man I may as well conclude that I shall rise to Life as that I shall rise to Judgement §. 69 R. B. 1. WHen you oppose Virtually to Expresly you seem by Virtually to mean in sense though not in terms If so then your Syllogism is tautological But take it in what sense you will in any propriety and I deny that it is Virtually written in Scripture that you or I do Believe or yet that you or I are Justified and shall be saved Yet I confess that some Conclusions may be said to be Interpretativè vel secundum loquutionem moralem in Scripture when but one of the premises is there but that is when the other is presupposed as being as certain but of this more anon where you speak of this subject more largely 2. To your instance I say It is by Faith and natural knowledg mixt that you conclude you shall rise again The Conclusion participateth of both Premises as to the ground of its certainty That it doth sequi is a right gathered Conclusion is known only by Reason and not by Faith that it is true is known partly by Reason and partly by Faith when the Premises belong to both Yet though in strict sense it be thus mixt in our ordinary discourse we must denominate it from one of the Premises and usually from the more notable alwaies from the more Debile Scripture saith All men shall rise Reason saith you are a man Though the Conclusion here parâ—â—â—e of both yet it is most fitly said to be de fide both because Scripture intended each particular man in the Universal and because it is supposed as known to all that they are men and therefore the other part is it that resolveth the doubt and is the notable and more debile part It s I know undoubted with you that Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem Now though Gods Word in it self is most infallible yet in respect of the evidence to us it is generally acknowledged that it is far short of natural principles and objects of sense in so much that men have taken it for granted that the objects of faith are not evident of which I will not now stand to speak what I think but touch it anon Therefore it being more evident that you are a man then it is that all men shall rise it is fittest to say the Conclusion is de fide as the more debile part But can we say so of the present Conclusion in question Have you a fuller evidence that you
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