to be acts of Justification which I am forced to interpret justifying acts I expected to finde the true act asserted but in stead of that I finde the opposite member is The blood of Christ Is this indeed the Controversie Whether it be Accepting Christ as Lord or the blood of Christ that justifieth Never was such a Question debated by me in the way here intimated I am wholly for you if this be the doubt It is Christs blood that justifieth meritoriously But yet we are justified by faith too as the condition of our interest in free Justification And why should these two be put in opposition I lookt when you had asserted and well proved that it is not taking Christ as Lord but only faith in his blood that is the condition on our part of our attaining Justification 7. It would prove a hard task to make good that there are several acts of justifying faith by which we are not justified without flying to great impropriety of speech By justifying faith you must mean the Act Habit or renewed Faculty If the act then I think you will say it is but one or not many Or at least every act which is justifying faith must needs be such as we are justified by Or else why should that act be called justifying faith 2. But I doubt not but you mean the habit And then 1. you confess that the habit is justifying faith which is true not only as it helpeth to produce the act but even as it is in it self But that will overthrow the doctrine of instrumentality 2. It requireth another kinde of Disputing then I here meet with to prove that acts and habits of mans soul are of so different a nature that where the acts are specifically distinct by the great distance and variety of objects yet the habit producing all these is one and the same and not distinct as the acts and that obedience self-denial and valour are acts of the same habit of faith as is the accepting an offered Christ 3. If you should mean by justifying faith the faculty as sanctified then all other acts of that faculty as sanctified or of the Spirit there residing might as well be called Acts of justifying faith But I will not imagine that this is your sense 8. 1 Cor. 4.4 is nothing to our business Paul was not his own justifier Though he knew not matter of condemnation sensu Evangelico for no doubt he knew himself to be a sinner yet that did not justifie him because it is God only that is his Judge Can you hence prove that accepting Christ as Lord is not the condition of our Justification Then you may prove the same of the accepting him as Saviour For Paul knew nothing by himself as if he were guilty of not performing the one or the other yet was he not thereby justified §. 3. Mr Bl. â—Ames indeed saith that Abraham was justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son on the Altar Jam. 2.21 but either there we must understand a working faith with Piscator Paraeus Pemble and confess that Paul and James handle two distinct questions The one Whether faith alone Justifies without works which he concludes in the Affirmative The other What faith justifieth Whether a working faith only and not a faith that is dead and idle Or else I know not how to make sense of the Apostle who streight inferres from Abrahams Justification by the offer of his son And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed to him for righteousness How otherwise do these accord He was justified by works and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith he was justified by faith §. 3. R. B. 1. IF James must use the term Works twelve times in thirteen verses a thing not usual as if he had foreseen how men would question his meaning and yet for all that we must beleeve that by Works James doth not mean Works it will prove as hard a thing to understand the Scripture as the Papists would perswade us that it is and that there is as great a necessity of a living deciding Judge 2. Do but reade over all those verses and put working-faith in stead of Works and try wâ—at sense you will make 3. No doubt but Paul and James handle two distinct Questions but not the two that you here express Paul speaks of Meritorious Works which make the Reward of Debt and not of Grace if you will beleeve his own description of them Rom. 4.4 But James speaks of no such Works but of such as have a consistency with Grace and necessary subordination to it I prove it The Works that James speaks of we must endeavour for and perform or perish supposing time But the works that Paul speaks of no man must endeavour or once imagine that he can perform viz. such as make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace Paul speaks indeed of faith collaterally but of Christs Merits and free-Grace directly and purposely So that the chief part of Pauls controversie was Whether we are justified freely through Christs Merits or through our own meritorious Works But James's question is Whether we are justified by faith alone or by faith with obedience accompanying it and both as subordinate to Christs Merits Paul's question is Of the meritorious Cause of our Justification James's question is Of the condition on our parts of our interest in a free Remission supposing Pauls question determined that Christ only is the Meriter Paul speaks of Justification in toto both in the beginning and progress but especially the beginning But James speaks only of Justification as continued and consummate and not as begun For both Abrahams and every mans was begun before Works of Obedience Though a disposition and resolution and engagement to obey do go before 4. If with the named Expositors you understand by Works a working-faith either you grant as much as I affirm in sense or else you must utterly null all the Apostle's arguing from vers 13. to the end For if by Working-faith you suppose that James meant that God did not only make Faith it self to be the pâ—incipall condition but also its Working in obedience when there is opportunity to be the secondary condition or part of the condition of Justification as continued as being the necessary modus or effect both which it is in several respects then you say the same in sense as I do only changing the Scripture terms without and against reason It is ordinary to make the modus or quality of that matter which is the substance of the condition to be as real a part of the condition as the matter it self As when you oblige your Debtor to pay you so much currant English money it is here as necessary that it be English and Currant as that it be money If you promise your servant his wages on condition he serve you faithfully here Faithfulness is as real a part of the Condition as
Service If a man take a woman in Marriage and estate her in all his Lands on condition that she will be to him a chast faithfull Wife here her chast fidelity is as true a part of the condition as to be his Wife So if God say He that hath a Working faith shall be justified and saved and he that hath not shall perish Here as faith is the principall part of the condition so that it be a Working is the secondary and as real a part of the condition as that it be faith And if Satan accuse you for not-beleeving at Judgement you must be justified by producing your faith it self so if he accuse you as having a faith that was not Working how will you be justified but by the Works or Working disposition of that faith 5. As for your single Argument here I answer 1. It is a weak ground to maintain that James twelve times in thirteen verses by Works means not Works and by faith alone which he still opposeth doth not mean faith alone and all this because you cannot see the connexion of one verse to the former or the force of one cited Scripture Others may see it and be able to shew sense in the Apostles words though you or I could not If every time we are at a losse in analysing or discerning the reason of a cited Text we shall presume to make so great an alteration meerly to bring all to hang together in our apprehensions we shall finde Analyzers the greatest corrupters of Scripture It is easie to imagine and fain a false Analysis with much plausibleness I conceive that James citeth these words expositorily q. d. And thus or in this sense the Scripture was fulfilled i e. historically spoke truly of that which was long before done Abraham beleeved God i. e. so as to second his faith with actual obedience and it i. e. beleeving and so obeying or trusting Gods promise and power so farre as to offer his son to death was imputed to him c. 2. Or why may not James by concession preoccupate an objection knowing that this would be objected he might say q. d. I grant that the Scripture was fulfilled which saith c. but yet though he were initially justified by faith only yet when he was called to works he was justified also by his obedience 3. And is it not as hard to discern the reason of this citation according to your exposition as mine For you may as well say How do these accord He was justified by a working faith and The Scripture was fulfilled which saith He was justified by faith For James is not proving that Abraham was justified by faith and yet this is it the Text speaks but that he was justified by works seconding faith or as you say by a Working-faith Where if you put any emphasis on the term Working and account it to superadde any thing to meer beleeving you say as much as I and then James must cite that Text expositorily and then whether according to my exposition or yours varies not the case seeing one saith as much for Works as the other But I suppose you will say Faith which justifieth must be working but it justifieth not qua operans Ans 1. True nor qua fides i. e. quâ apprehendit objectum if the quâ speaks the formall reason of its interest in Justification 2. But why cannot faith justifie unless it be working If you say Because that God hath made it the condition of Justification that we beleeve with a working faith and so that it be working is part of the Condition you say the same in sense as I. If you say either that working is necessary as a sign that faith is true or that the nature of true faith will work both are truth but to say this is the Apostle's sense is to null all his Argumentation For he pleads not for a meer necessity of signification or discovery but for a necessity ut medij ad Justificationem even that Justification which he cals Impuâ—ing of Righteousness and that by God And he argueth not only Physically what the nature of faith will produce but morally what men must do to such ends And it is only as a condition that faith or its working nature can be necessary ad finem ut media moralia if you speak of such an absolute necessity as the Text doth §. 4. Mr Bl. ALL works before or after conversion inherent in us or wrought by us are excluded from Justification §. 4. R. B. 1. THe term Works signifieth either such as a Workman doth to deserve his wages for the value of his Work which make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace and so its true Or it signifieth all good actions and so this saying is contrary to the scope of the Scripture 1. Faith and Repentance are such works and wrought by us 2. James asserteth the inclusion of such works If you say But faith and repentance justifie not as Good works I easily grant it That they be Good floweth from the Precept That they Justifie floweth from the Promise constituting them the Condition If they should justifie because Good their goodness must be such as may accrue to a Meritoriousnessâ— But yet they must be Good before they can justifie as Conditions of the free Gift yea and have a peculiar eminent goodness consisting in their aptitude to this work and to Glorifie the free Justifier Mat. 25. Rom. 2. James 2. with the greatest part of Scripture look not with such a face as your Proposition This may serve to your following words §. 5. Mr Bl. ANd these things considered I am truly sorry that faith should now be denied to have the office or place of an instrument in our Justification nay scarce allowed to be called the instrument of our receiving Christ that justifies us because the act of faith which is that which justifieth us is our actual receiving Christ and therefore cannot be the instrument of receiving This is too subtle a Notion We use to speak otherwise of faith Faith is the eye of the soul whereby we see Christ and the eye is not â—ight Faith is the hand of the soul whereby it receives Christ and the hand is not receiving And Scripture speaks otherwise We receive remission of sins by faith and an inheritance among them that are sanctified is received by faith Act. 18.26 Why else is this righteousness sometime called the righteousness of faith and sometime the righteousness of God which is by faith but that it is a righteousness which faith receives Christ dwels in us by faith Eph. 3.17 By faith we take him in and give him entertainment We receive the promise of the Spirit through faith Gal. 3.14 These Scriptures speak of faith as the souls instrument to receive Christ Jesus to receive the Spirit from Christ Jesus §. 5. R. B. 1. I Know not how to meddle with Controversies but some body will be sorry
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
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
But such is the Doctrine of Faith therefore I know some Divines to the no small wrong of the Christian Faith say None can really believe it but the Regenerate But the Jews believe the supernatural Revelations of the Old Testament and the Divels and many a thousand wicked men believe both old and new experience tells us so Christ tells us so that many believe who fall away in persecution James tells such men that they do well in believing but the Divel doth so too else men could not reject or persecute the known Truth To conclude it is commonly said that infused Habits infunduntur ad mâ—dum acquisitorum and therefore the habit of Faith in the Intellect must be caused by an Impress of evidence Though the Spirits supernatural act be moreover necessary yet that makes not other causes unnecessary Rada who concludes that Theologia nostra non est evidens gives but these two poor reasons and I should as soon look for strong ones from him as almost any man of his Religion or party 1. Principia Conclusionum nostrae Theologiae non sunt nobis Evidentia sed Condita therefore nec Conclusiones c. I deny the Antecedent which he proves nor Veracitas Divina est formale objectum fidei and that is evident so is the Revelation as is said 2. He saith Si conclusiones nostrae Theologiae essent Evidentes possemus convincere Infideles ut fidem nostram susciperent quia Evidentia convincit Intellectum I answer 1. The greatest Evidence supposeth other necessary concurrents for conviction as a Will to understand and divers other things which the wicked want As it is not for want of Evidence of present Objects but for want of good eyes that a blinde man seeth not so it is here 2. Many Infidels do Believe without special Grace though not so deeply and clearly as to prevail with their Wills for a through conversion yea the Divels themselves believe And whereas he adds Pauls words 2 Cor. 5. We walk by Faith not by sight it speaks not of Rational Evidence but of sensitive and that we confess is wanting Faith is the Evidence of things not seen Heb. 11.1 Were it not for digressing too far I would examine the 9. Quest Mater 14. de fide of Aquinas de Veritate and shew how ill he answers the nine Arguments which he undertakes to answer and how weak his own Arguments are for the proving that fides non potest esse de rebus scitis And I should shew that Faith is a kinde of Science or if we will distinguish it from Science it must not be so widely as is usual nor upon the reason that it wanteth Evidence But I suppose he that will impartially read Aquinas ubi sup will without any help see the weakness of his answers and how he seemed to stagger himself Yet let me add this caution or two 1. I do not mean that every man who hath true Faith doth discern the great and chiefest Evidence of the Truth of the Doctrine of Faith 2. Where there is the same Evidence in the thing there may be such different apprehensions of it through the diversity of Intellectual capacities and preparations as that one may have a firme Belief and certain and another but a probable opinion and another none at all 3. Though I take the Evidence of the Doctrine of Faith to be as full as I have mentioned yet not so obvious and easily discerned as sensitive evidence and therefore as one cause there are fewer believe 4. Also the distance of the objects of Faith makes them work less on the affections and the presence and other advantages of sensual Objects for a facile moving the Spirits makes them carrie men away so potently by making greater Commotions in the passions so that no wonder if sense do prevail with most I confess also that men have need of good acquaintance with Antiquity and other History and the Seal of the Church in most parts of the world to see the strong Evidence that there is of the Infallible Tradition of the Scriptures down to us and to some obscure men this may be inevident as it may be to one brought up in a secret Cloister whether ever we had a King or Parliament or Laws in England But the thing is not therefore inevident to the industrious No though it depend on that verity of Report which as proceeding from each particular person is contingent seeing there is Evidence of Infallible Verity even in the Circumstances of these Contingent reports And as Rada when he concludes boldly that Cognitio Dei respectu Contingentium non est proprie scientia c. yet seems to grant that God may scire Contingentia uâ— necessaria si non ut Contingentia so it may be said in our present Case the same Reports which are Contingent are yet in other respects of Evident Verity and so we know them But I finde I have been drawn beyond my intent to digress far on this point but it is because it tends to clear the main point in question To return therefore to Mr. Blake I do not know the meaning of his next words where he saith that This Argument Well followed would put me to a great loss in some of my Arguments for Scripture c. Doth he think that I argue to prove the Divinity of Scriptures from themselves alone as the Testifier thereof to our Faith or that I take it to be meerly or primarily de fide that Scripture is Gods Revelation when I have professedly published the contrary before those Arguments where I have also added these words of Mr. Rich. Hooker wherewith I will conclude this Section Truly it is not a thing impossible nor greatly hard even by such kinde of proofs so to manifest and clear that point that no man living shall be able to deny it without denying some apparent principles such as all men acknowledge to be true Again Scripture teacheth us that saving Truth which God hath discovered to the world by Revelation but it presumeth us taught otherwise that it self is Divine and Sacred Again These things we believe knowing by Reason that Scripture is the Word of God Again It is not required nor can be exacted at our hands that we should yield it any other Assent then such as doth answer the Evidence Again How bold and confident soever we may be in words when it comes to the tryal such as the Evidence is which the Truth hath such is the Assent nor can it be stronger if grounded as it should be so far Mr. Hooker cited once more Eccles pol. p. 102 103 c. §. 76. Mr. Bl. TO winde up all though there be some difference in the way between me and my learned friend yet there is little in the thing it self Mr. Baxter saies that the Proposition to which God sealeth runs thus If thou believe I do pardon thee and will save thee The soul must assume the Minor But