opposeth are but that Divines are of that judgement §. 57. Mr. Bl. ANd what I have said of the Life promised I say of Death threatned c. My Learned friend Mr. Baxter enquiring into this Death that was here threatened saith that the same Damnation that followed the breach of the second Covenant it could not be Aph. p. 15. When I suppose it rather should be said that in substance and kinde it can be no other Infidels that were never under any other Covenant c. §. 57. R. B. 1. WHat also I have answered to the former may suffice to this for the main 2. One would think that you intended directly to contradict me but whether you do so indeed I cannot well tell I know nor what you mean by substance and kinde Pain and Loss have no substance but a subject I never doubted but that it is the Loss of the same God and Blessedness formally considered but I am yet very uncertain whether the Blessedness promised by Christ be not far greater in Degree then that to Adam and consequently whether the Poena Damni threatned in the Gospel be not far greater Also I know as to the mediate Blessings Relative they are not the same To be deprived by Unbelief of Remission Reconciliation Adoption the everlasting praising of him that Redeemed us by his blood c. these are true punishments on unbelievers that reject the mercies offered to them but these were none of Adams punishments That was a Negation only to him that is a Privation to them I profess also that I ever took the pain of Sense to be of the same nature which was due to Adams Soul and which is due to unbelievers Only I then did and still do doubt whether any Scripture speak of the everlasting Torments of Adams body or whether it were not only his Soul that should eternally suffer his body being turned to dust and so suffering the penaltie of loss Nay whether the New Testament do not make Resurrection the proper fruit of Christs death and Resurrection But of this I am not fully resolved my self much less will I contend for it But I must needs say that I took not a gradual difference in punishments to be inconsiderable Nay I know that moral specifications are grounded in natural gradual differences And Rewards and Punishments being moral things formally they may and oft must be said to differ specie and not to be the same when naturally they differ but in degree Yea whether in naturals themselves we may not sometimes finde a specification in meer degrees is not so clear as rashly to be denyed There is but a gradual difference between the smallest prick with a pin and to be thrust throow with daggers in 20 places yet I will not say that it is the same punishment §. 58. Mr. Bl. NEither can I assent to that speech To say that Adam should have gon quick to Hell if Christ had not been promised or sin pardoned is to contradict the Scriptures that make death temporal the wages of Sin It were I confess to presume above Scripture but I cannot see it a contradiction of Scripture A burning Feaver Consumption Leprosie Pestilence c. are in Scripture made the wages of sin Yet many go to hell through those diseases c. §. 58. R. B. I Willingly leave every man to his own judgement in this But I think it most probable that the sâ—paration of Soul and body was particularly intended in the threatning Thou shalt dye the death Reas 1. Because this is it that is in prima significatione called Death and the miseries of Life but Tropically much more this or that particular miserie which answers your objection about sicknesses 2. This is it that Christ was necessarily to suffer for us and if it had not been necessary for man to dye thus by the Commination of that Law then it would not thence have been necessary for Christ to dye this Death For it was not the following sentence which you call Leges post laâ—as which Christ came to satisfie or bear but the curse of the Law Gal. 3.13 be being made a curse for us Phil. 2.8 Col. 1.22 Heb. 9.15 by means of death he was to Redeem the transgressors of thâ— first Law without Blood there is no Remission The death of the creatures in sacrificings signified the necessity of this Death of Christ I have met with none but Mr. John Goodwin that saith Christs readyness or willingness to have dyed might have served the turn though the Jews had not put him to death Col. 1.20.14 Eph. 1.7 Rom. 3.25 It s true the Apostle speaking of the necessitie of Blood in Heb. hath reference to the Constitutions of Moses Law but then it must be confessed that that Law did in its Curse much explicate the former and direct us to see what was threatned and what must by the Messiah be suffered for us Heb. 2.14 Christ was to destroy by death him that had the power of death that is the Devil but it seems that the Law gave him his power at the Will and Sentence of the Iudge for execution 1 Cor. 15.26.54 Death is the last enemy to be overcome O Death where is thy sling O Grave where is thy victory This is no doubt the death now in question It is the evils befallen mankinde in execution of the violated Law that are called enemies Though we dye it seems there was a necessitie of Christs dying to loose the bonds of our Death and procure us a Resurrection Rom. 5.17 As by one mans offence death reigned by one c. That one man must dye for the people Câ—iaphus prophesied Joh. 18.14 3. The sentence useth to contain what is threatned in the Law and though part may be remitted yet the other part is the same threatned But Gods Sentence on Adam contained the penaltie of a temporal Death Though he mentioned not the Eternal because he would provide a remedy yet the temporal as one part meant in the threatning he laid on man himself Dust thou art and to dust shalt thou return This is not as you imagine Lex post lata but sententia Judicis Legis violaâ—ae comminationem exequentis When it is said 1 Cor. 15.22 in Adam all dye it is in Adams finning all became guilty of it and in Adam then sentenced all were adjudged to it Which is intimated also Rom. 5.12 Sin entered into the world and death by sin and so death passed on all men for that all have sinned So that the sentence expressing this Death particularly and Christ bearing it necessarily and adde moreover all mankinde for the generality bearing it certainly and also Death signifying primarily the separation of Soul and Body it seems to me most probable that this Death was in special meant in the threatning But you say He takes the same way where his Justice hath satisfaction those that are priviledged from death as the wages of sin thus Dye Reply I do
not believe you that any are Priviledged from death as the wages of sin who dye This is the part of the penalty which the sentence passed on the offendor himself for all the promised satisfaction by a Redeemer Nor did the Redeemer satisfie to that end to prevent our death or to cause that it should not be the wages of sin but to deliver us from under the power of it Where you say that this way of God with unbelievers is voluntary not necessitated I Reply So it may be nevertheless because it was meant in the threatning It is dangerous to imagine that God is ever the less free or more necessitated so as that his actions should be less voluntary because of his determinations He doth as voluntarily do what he hath predetermined to do and foretold he will do as if he had done neither God changeth not and therefore he is as voluntary in the execution as he was in the determination §. 59. Of the Law as made to Christ Mr. Bl. CHap. 6. p. 25. And though Mr. Baxter doubts whether it be any part of Gods Legislative Will as it referrs to Christ but only as it belongs to us as a Prophesie what God would do in the advancing of Christ and his Kingdom and so of us Append p. 39. Yet me thinks it is plain seeing Christ acknowledges a command from his Father in laying down his life Joh. 10.18 and the Apostle speaking of the work saith He was obedient in it c. §. 59. R. B. ONe that had not read what I write would think by your Answer that I had made a doubt whether there be any Law made to Christ at all or not Whereas I spake only of that called the Covenant between the Father and the Son made from Eternity or the promises expressed by the Prophets as to Christ in his meer Divine nature not yet incarnate For I conceive that Christ before the incarnation may not be said to be a subject and that God is not properly said to command himself or covenant with himself or make promises by Prophets to himself But I deny not but that Christ as man was under a Law yea and a Law peculiar to himself whereto no other creature is subject even the Law of Mediation which deserves in the body of Theologie a peculiar place and the handling of it as distinct from all the Laws made with us men is of special use and if well done would do much to remove the stumbling blocks which the Antinomians fall upon §. 60. Whether the Sacraments seal the conditional Promise absolutely or the conclusion conditionally when only one of the Premises is of Divine Revelation And whether this conclusion be de fide I am Justified and shall be saved Mr. Bl. p. 38. BVt that which I may not pass is somewhat of concernment both to my self and the present cause in hand c. §. 60. R. B. I Need not transcribe these words being of another and not spoke to me But I will pass my conjecture to his questions 1. I conjecture that the Querist by Evading meant Owning and Justifying the fact and so evading the blame 2. To the second I conjecture the Querist had been lately conversant in Mr. Blakes book and so it was in his memorie and whether he knew what those whom you mention do hold I cannot tell 3. To the third If by Sacramental sealing you mean Conditional sealing I conjecture his conceit might be this that as the Promise may be conditionally tendred to Infidels Murderers or any other so might the Seal if it were but Conditional as the Promise As we may say to the worst If thou wil◠believe thou shalt be saved so might we conditionally seal salvation to him But I take this to be a great mistake §. 61. Mr. Bl. p. 40. MR Baxter who is put to it to stoop too low in the answer of such trifles in his answer to this now in hand hath taken much pains to finde out the way of the Sacraments sealing and in the result he and I shall not be found much to differ yet seeing providence made me the occasion of starting the question I shall take leave to take some view of what is said Mr. Baxter saith It is in vain to enquire whether the Sacraments do seal Absolutely or Conditionally till you first know what is that they do seal and in order to the finding this out he layes down the way that a Christian doth gather the assurance of his Justification and Salvation which is thus He that believeth is Justified and shall be saved but I believe therefore I am Justified and shall be saved I confess if I had been put upon a discovery of that which is sealed in the Sacraments this Syllogism I think would scarce have come into my thoughts seeing the Seal is Gods as Mr. Baxter observes I should have rather looked for one from him then to have supposed a believer to have been upon the frame of one §. 61. R. B. THis dispute is so confused and so much about words that I would not have meddled with it let men have made what use of yours they pleased but only for some matters of greater moment that fall in upon the by in your handling it I think your meaning and mine is the same 1. I not only said as you express that the Seal is Gods but gave my Reasons to prove a mutual Sealing as well as a mutual Covenanting 2. What reason have you why I might not illustrate the matter by this Syllogism as well as another 3. If you will have a Syllogism of Gods making why did you not tell us when or where you found it and let us see as well as you whence you had it that we may know God made it God doth not nectere Syllogismos for himself nor actu immanente if he do it it is only for us per actum transeuntem and then it may be found in his word But more of that anon 4. I should think though for illustration I judged it not unuseful that it is of no necessitie for you or me to talk of any Syllogism at all in the enquiry after the sealed proposition If it be but one proposition we may express it alone If more we may distinctly express them rather then that shall breed any difference I care not whether my Syllogism be mentioned any more Let us see what yours is §. 62. Mr. Bl. ANd such a one I should have looked to have gathered up from the Institution and thus I conceive framed He to whom I give Christ to him I give Justification and Salvation But here I give thee Christ therefore to thee I give Justification and Salvation §. 63. R. B. 1. WHat mean you by gathering it Do you mean that you will read it there ready formed If so shew us the Chapter and Verse But that must not be expected for you say anon that it is something not written that is sealed
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
Professor of a dead not working Faith If the first it is a contradiction to say He professeth to have a lively Faith and He only engageth so to believe hereafter For if he profess to have it already then he can engage only to the Continuation and not the Inception of it If you mean the latter then I shall shew you anon that a man professing a Dead not-working Faith is not in Scripture called to Covenant with God in Baptism to believe lively for the future incepivè and to believe for the future with a working Faith In the mean time this should be proved which yet I never saw You suppose then such a professor as this coming to Baptism saying Lord I believe that Thou art God alone and Christ the only Redeemer and the Holy-Ghost the Guide and Sanctifier of thy people and that the World Flesh and Devil is to be renounced for thee but at present these are so dear to me that I will not forsake them for thee I will not take Thee for my God to Rule me or be my Happiness nor will I take Christ to Govern me and Save me in His way nor will I be Guided or Sanctified by the Holy-Ghost but hereafter I will therefore I come to be Baptized 3. That which you judge undeniable you see I deny It is not therefore de facto undeniable When you and I can each of us attain to such a height of confidence of the Verity of our several Contradictory Propositions in a matter of such moment and about the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ which the Apostle reckoneth as the milk of Babes who are unskilful in the word of Righteousness Heb. 5.12 13 14. and 6.1.2 it encreaseth my conviction of the great necessity of toleration of some great errors even in Preachers of the Gospel For either yours or mine seem such I finde no proof of your undenyable Proposition 1. The Seal is but an affix to the Promise therefore that which is the condition of the Promise is the condition of the Seal 2. The use of the Seal is to confirm the Promise to him to whom it is Sealed Therefore the condition of the Promise is the condition of the Seal 3. If the Promise and Seal have two distinct conditions then there are two distinct Covenants for from the conditions most commonly are contracts specified and therefore Wesenbechius and such like Logical Civilians call it the form of the contract or stipulation to be either Dura vel in diem vel sub conditione and those sub-conditions are specified oft from their various conditions But there is not two Covenants therefore but of this more anon 4. Is it not against the nature and common use of Sealing that it should be in order before the Promise or Covenant and that men should have first right to that Seal on one condition before they have right to the Promise and then have right to the Promise after on another condition 5. If it be so undenyable that that Faith which is the condition of the Promise is not the condition in foro Dei of Title to the Seal as you affirm why do you then build so much against Mr. Tombes on that argument from Act. 2. The Promise is to you and your children arguing a Right to the Seal from an Interest in the Promise 6. Where you say that An acknowledgement of the necessity of such faith with engagement to it is sufficient for a Title to the Seal I Reply then those that at present renounce Christ so it be against their knowledge and conscience and will engage to own him sincerely for the future have right to Baptism A convinced persecutor may acknowledge this necessity and engage that before he dies he will be a true Believer and yet resolve to be no Christian till then no not so much as in profession 7. Your instance of service fidelitie in war runs upon the great mistake which I have so often told you of The formal Reason and denomination of a condition is from the Donors constitution or imposition giving his benefits only on the terms by himself assigned and not from our Promise to perform them And therefore our Promise it self is the chief condition of Gods Promise and to speak as your self did Our Justifing faith being our Restipulation that Restipulation is not only part of our condition but the whole as to our first Right to Christ Justification and Salvation though that Right shall not be continued nor we actually glorified but on condition both of continuing that faith and of adding if there be opportunitie sincere obedience in perseverance to the death §. 50. Mr. Bl. 4. AS for the argument ad hominem framed against those who make initial or common faith sufficient to entitle to Baptism and yet affix Remission of sins to all Baptism even so received without any performance of further engagement I leave to them to defend who maintain such Doctrine and to speak to the Absurdities that follow upon it §. 50. R. B. THough you avoid the dint of this argument by forsaking Dr. Ward here yet it may perhaps appear that your own way is clogged with more Absurdities then a few §. 51. Mr. Bl. 5. THat of Philip to the Eunuch seems to carry most colour The Eunuch must believe with all his heart before he must be baptized and I have known it trouble some that are fully convinced that a Dogmatical faith gives title to baptism satisfying themselves with this answer that howsoever Philip called for such a faith which leads to salvation yet did not express himself so far that no faith short of this gives title to baptism It may be answered that a Dogmatical faith is true faith suo genere as well as that which Justifieth therefore I know not why men should give it the term of false Faith seeing Scripture calls it Faith and such as those Believers and the heart in such a Faith as to an entire assent is required If we look into the Eunuchs answer in which Philip did rest satisfied and proceeded upon it to baptism it will take away all scruple his answer is I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God There is no more in that then a common Faith this is believed by men not justified yet this Faith entitles to baptism and upon this confession of Faith the Eunuch is baptized §. 51. R. B. THat will not trouble you which troubleth others To your answer I Reply 1. When we do with the Scriptures enquire after Faith in Christ crucified we may well call that a false Faith which pretends to be this and is not this however true in suo genere Faith in Jupiter Sol Mahomet is true in suo genere and so is humane Faith yet I would call it a false Faith if this should be pretended to be Faith in Christ To believe in Christ as man only or as God only or as a Guide to Heaven only and
far as we have any History to guide us Tertullian Cyprian and all Antiquity uno ore that write of these things put that past question And I dare not think that Christs Church hath ever required that as necessary in Baptism which was not requisite till afterward And if Mr. Bl. say that they did but promise for the future not to follow the World Flesh and Devil before Christ I Reply They renounced them at present and thereby shewed the present conversion and Resolution of their hearts that it was afterward that this was to be manifested in action Argu. 5. They that are required to believe sincerely in the Father Son and Holy-Ghost are required to believe to Justification But such are all that come to baptism Therefore For the major it requires no more proof but to explain what it is to believe in the Father Son and Holy-Ghost And our Divines against the Papists have enough proved that the phrase of Believing in comprehendeth the act of the will as well as of the understanding To believe in God is to take him for our God to take him for our God is to take him for our Soveraign Ruler and Chief good This none but a sound believer can truly do Mr. Bl. confesseth elswhere that â—his is the summe of the Covenant to take God for our God give up our selves to be his people For the Minor They that are to be baptized into the name of the Father Son and Holy-Ghost are to believe in the Father Son and Holy-Ghost But all that are baptized are to be baptized into the name of the Father Son and Holy-Ghost therefore Were it necessary many Texts might be cited that prove it is not only Assent but a believing in Christ that is requisite The very Creed shews it which hath Credo in Deum c. which Creed for the main Articles of it the Church hath ever required all to profess that would be baptized before the application of the water And then that this is required to be done sincerely needs no proof with them that will not believe that God commands or loves dissembling So that I conclude This sincere Faith is required in and before baptism and not only to be promised that we will perform it hereafter Argu. 6. They that are required to repent sincerely are required to believe to justification at the same time But all that come to baptism at age are required to repent sincerely therefore The major is evident 1. In that sincere Repentance and true Faith are inseparable 2. In that Remission is promised to all that truly Repent as well as to them that believe The Minor is proved from several plain Scriptures Act. 2.38 Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of sins And it was no half or common Repentance that he calls them to for Remission of sins was to be its Consequent If Mr. Bl. say here also That it is the weakest of all Arguments to argue from the order expressed in Scripture I shall say I will not believe him because I suppose Scripture in such Practical directions speaks not more confusedly or preposterously then he or I would do Act. 11.18 It is called Repentance unto life which the Gentils had before and in their Baptism yea they had first the Holy-Ghost Act. 10.47 And Heb. 6.1 Repentance from dead works is a Principle Paul the Jaylor and all that we read of that were Baptized did repent or seemed so to do and were required to do it before Baptism If Mr. Bl. sâ—y It is a Repentance short of that which is saving that is here required I would he would describe it to us and tell us wherein it is short 1. Objectively I hope he will not deny but it is every sin that men should repent of 2. Subjectively it is doubtless sincere and not counterfeit that is required I conclude therefore that seeing saving Repentance is prerequisite to Baptism by Gods appointment and not only to be promised to be afterward performed we must say the same of saving Faith Argu. 7. If saving Grace be not required in Christs Baptism then it requireth less then Johns Baptism did But the Consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent The Consequence of the major is all that requires proof Which I prove from many Texts Mat. 3.2.6 8. He first preacheth Repentance and causeth them to confess their sins and reprehendeth the Pharises that came in Hypocrisie or with unsound Repentance And it was true Repentance for Remission of sins was annext Mar. 1.4 And it may not only be required after Baptism but before and it is called the Baptism of Repentance because in it they professed Repentance So Act. 13.24 and 19.4 Argu. 8. If Faith-Justifying be required before Remission of sin then is it required of God before we come to Baptism or in us before we bring our Infants But such Faith is prerequisite to Remission of sin therefore The consequence is proved thus Remission is the end and immediate consequent of Baptism where men come as God hath required them Therefore if sincere Faith be prerequisite to Remission it is prerequisite also to right to Baptism I prove the Antecedent Act. 22.16 Ananias saith to Paul Why tarryest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins This was a present Remission and not a future only So Act. 2.38 Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of sins And it is a Faith which hath the Promise of Remission which Peter requires of the Gentils before he baptize them Act. 10.43 Act. 13.39 the Apostle tells them All that belive are Justified when he is perswading them to believe It is therefore a believing to Justification which he was perswading them to Rom. 6.3 4. Know ye not that as many as were Baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death therefore we are buryed with him â—y baptism into death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead c. It is therefore in the act of Baptism that we are buried and rise Sacramentally to signifie the present change of our state from the Grave of sin So Col. 2.11 12 13. and 1 Pet. 3.21 Baptism is said to save us but not the external washing without the answer of a good conscience which affordeth two arguments One in that Baptism saveth and therefore leaves not man when rightly used a childe of wrath afterward 2. In that the Answer of a good conscience is required to concurr with Baptism for so the Apostle plainly intimates and the best Expositors understand it and not of a thing to follow as Mr. Bl. doth Eph. 5.25 26. Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word Wherefore Paul supposeth them cleansed that are Baptized 1 Cor. 6.11 Such were some of you but ye are washed but ye are sanctified
read a Remonstrant that would say that the work is so ours as that it is only the power that is vouchsafed us by God I conclude therefore that you have not confuted my answer 1. In that you have not disproved the absolute Promise of the first special Grace 2. You have not disproved God to be the Author of our Faith so as that it is his work 3. If you had yet Believing which is our work is not the same thing with giving Faith or moving us to believe which I say is Gods Work §. 56. Of the Life Promised and Death threatned to Adam in the first Law Mr. Bl. I Finde no material difference in the Conditions on Gods part in these Covenants Life is promised in both in Case of Covenant-keeping and Death is threatned in both in case of Covenant-breaking Some indeed have endeavored to finde a great difference in the Life Promised in the Covenant of Works and the Life that is promised in the Covenant of Grace as also in the Death that is threatned in the one and in the other and thereupon move many and indeed inextricable difficulties What Life man should have enjoyed in case Adam had not fallen and what Death man should have dyed in case Christ had not been promised From which two endlessly more by way of Consectary maybe drawn by those that want neither wit nor leisure to debate them In which the best way of satisfaction and avoidance of such puzzeling mazes is to enquire what Scripture means by Life which is the good in the Covenant promised and what by Death which is the evil threattned Now for the first Life contains all whatsoever conduces to true Happiness to make man blessed in Soul and body All good that Christ purchases and Heaven enjoyes is comprised under it in Gospel expressions c. On the contrary under death is comprised all that is injurious to man or mankinde that tends to his misery in Soul and body The damnation of Hell being called death the uttermost of evils being the separation of Soul and body from God Joh. 8.51 1 Joh. 3.14 Sin which leads to it and is the cause of it is called death in like manner Eph. 2.1 And the separation of Soul from the body being called Death sickness plagues are so called in like manner Exod. 10.17 Now happiness being promised to man in Covenant only indefinitely under that notion of Life without limit to this or that way of happiness in this or that place God is still at liberty so that he make man happy where or however to continue happiness to him and is not tyed up in his engagement either for earth or heaven And therefore though learned Camero in his Tract de triplici faedere Thes 9. make this difference between the Covenant of works and the Covenant of Grace In the Covenant of Works which he calls nature Life was promised and a most blessed Life but an animal life in Paradise in the Covenant of Grace a life in Heaven and Spiritual And Mr. Baxter in his Aphor. of Justification p. 5. saith That this Life promised was only the continuance of that state that Adam was then in in Paradise is the opinion of most Divines Yet with submission to better Judgements I see not grounds for it seeing Scripture no way determines the way and kinde c. And indeed there are strong probabilities Heaven being set out by the name of Paradise in Christs speech to the theif on the Cross and in Pauls vision c. §. 56. R. B. 1. YOur opinion in this point is moderate and I think sound I have nothing therefore to say to you but about our different expressions and therefore excuse me if I be short for I love not that work I think your judgement and mine are the same 2. Only remember that it is Mr. Blake also that hath these words pag. 74. The Conditions on mans part in the Covenant of Works were for mans preservation in statu quo in that condition in which he was created to hold him in Communion with God which was his happiness he expected not to be bettered by his obedience either respective to happiness no more is promised then in present he had nor yet in his Qualifications respective to his conformitie to God in Righteousness and true holiness What improvement he might have made of the Habit infused by the exercise of obedience I shall not determine but no change in Qualifications was looked after or given in Promise so far Mr. Blake If the Reader cannot reconcile Mr. Blake and me let him reconcile Mr. Blake with himself and the work is done 3. But I confess that upon more serious consideration of several passages in the New Testament naming and describing the work of Redemption I am ready to think it far more probable that Adam was not created in Patria but in Via not in the highest perfection which he should expect but in the way to it But whether God would have given it him in the same place that he was in or in some other called Heaven upon a remove I take as Mr. Bl. doth to be unrevealed and undetermined in the Promise So that I could finde in my heart to fall a confuting the same opinion in Mr. Blake expressed in these last words which he confuteth in me but that his former save me the labor 4. I confess also that I spoke rashly in saying that it was the opinion of most Divines seeing it so hard a matter to know which way most go in the point I also confess that the judgement of Camero Mr. Ball Mr. Gataker c. swayed much with me but the silence of the text in Gen. much more but I had not so well weighed several Texts in the New Testament as I ought which describing Redemption give some more light into the point The same I say concerning the qualitie of the Death threatned 5. I agree to Mr. Blakes first conclusion that the thing is indeterminate or at lest hard for us to know but I cannot reconcile his premises with that conclusion much less with this his latter speech p. 74. For if as he saies the Life promised was all whatsoever conduces to true happiness to make men blessed in soul and body by conducing to I suppose he meant constituting of then either the Caelestial Degree of Grace and Glory conduces not to that happiness and then not to ours who have no greater natural capacitie or else I see not how it can be said that this greater blessedness was not Promised Doubtless Adam had not in present possession so great a measure of holiness so confirmed a state of Holiness or Glory nor so great and full a fruition of God as Christ hath given us a sure hope of in the Gospel And therefore though he say God is at liberty for the place and way yet that is nothing to the kinde and measure 6. Observe that the words of mine which Mr. Bl.
the Thing or Instrument is really ours or that we own it and so as Amesius saith to be Testimonium Secundarium added to the Primary Testimonie of the Covenant or other Instrument But the special end of the Seal ariseth from the nature and use of the Instrument sealed and not from the nature of a Seal as such My opinion now upon the present Controversie I give you in these Conclusions Concl. 1. Taking the word as strictly as we use to do in English the Sacraments are not properly Seals but Metaphorically But taking the word Seal more largely as it signifieth any instituted sign for testimony of ones owning the Instrument Revealing Promising Exhibiting c. so they may be called Seals 2. The Sacraments are not to be applyed to universal or indefinite subjects but to particulars Indeed they cannot be entire Sacraments without particular Application that is either to that particular Congregation or a particular person and still the Receptive Application must be personal 3. Therefore not meer universal or particular or indefinite Enunciations are to be used by the Administer but singulars also 4. Yet I conceive that as the Universal Enunciation is first to be expressed so it is that universal that is sealed though with application to singular persons it being not a Collective but a Distributive Universal and not Distributive only in Genera singulorum but in singula Generum and therefore may be applyed ad singula Generum 5. I conceive that God may be said to Seal first the truth of the History of Christs death and blood shed and also the Truth of the Doctrine of the Gospel that this Blood was shed as a Ransom for sinners and that it was for our sins that he dyed 6. And this quoad institutionem Sacramentorum may be said to be intended to his universal Church but quoad exercitium actualâ—m applicationem it is directly still to singulars 7. I conceive also that in the Ministerial act of offering and saying Take Eat Drink Christ may be said to Seal his Precept whereby he hath made it the dutie of man to Take or Accept an offered Saviour with his benefits on the Offerers terms 8. Thus far there is no question but he sealeth to Hypocrites as well as to true Believers 9. Concerning the Promise or Testament we must yet distinctly consider 1. the Promise it self which goes first 2. the sealing of this Promise which is next 3. the Delivery or Application by offer which is next 4. the Reception or Acceptance of the thing offered which is next 5. the actual efficacie of the Promise in Constituting the Right of the Receiver in the Benefit which is next 6. the mutual obligation of each Partie to fulfill the remainder of the Covenant for the future which is the last 10. That Seal which properly confirms the Gospel to be true is miracles and other gifts of the Holy Ghost but the Sacraments though they may do much also to that as they are a continued publick Commemoration and so an excellent way of Tradition yet are they especially Applicatory signs for renewing clear apprehensions helping memorie assisting in our Application of the general Promise resolving our Wills exciting our affections to a more lively sense of Christs Love and our sin and Duty c. and actually to help us in the Praises of the Redeemer by so solemn and sensible a Commemoration of his Redemption of us 11. Ministers are Christs Officers in Explication and Application of his Laws and Covenants 12. Their Application or Explication is no Addition to the sense nor any making of a new Law or Covenant Therefore when God saith Whosoever will Believe shall have Christ and Life and the Minister saith If thou A. B. wilt Believe thou shalt have Christ and Life The Minister addeth not to the Promise but applyeth it according to its proper sense seeing a universal Enunciation absolutely so called may be distributed in singula generum though a Universal secundum quid may be only distributed into Species or genera singulorum 13. And therefore to seal to that singular Enunciation is no more then to seal to the Universal but much less if it were to that alone 14. It is Gods Legal Deed of Gift or Promise written in Scripture or otherwise expressed to which the Sacrament is a Seal and consequently to that singular enunciation which is but part of the same Promise and that as it is contained in the universal but not as it is a thing distinct from the universal Promise or as supposed to adde to it or contain more for sense in it nor to the Application of the Minister as such 15. But for the right understanding of this we must explain this word to Seal to which is of several significations 1. It is one thing to seal to a thing as the Testimonium primarium to which the Seal is the Testimonium secundarium So the Instrument is sealed to 2. It is another thing to seal to a thing as the subjectum materiale obsignatum so the matter contained in that Instrument is sealed to 3. It is another thing to seal to a thing as the finis cujus ultimatus so the good which the partie ultimately receives from that Donation Contract c. as its end is sealed to 4. And it s another thing to seal to a thing as the finis cujus proximus vel propior and so to our Right to Christ our Remission Justification Adoption c. are sealed to 5. And it s yet another thing to seal to a person as the finis cui and so God sealeth to us the forementioned Covenant c. I mean that according to its several respects to these things the words seal to hath several significations Now the application the Right delivered c. may be said to be sealed to as the finis proximus cujus for it is sealed that it may be delivered and applyed for conveying Right but these are not sealed to as the subjectum obsignatum that is the Promise 〈◊〉 Grant it self whereby Right is conveyed 16. The Sacraments are not only Seals to the Grant or Promise but furthermore are Exhibiting or Conferring signs in subserviencie to the Promise as Instruments to solemnize the Collation of Christ and his Benefits And this seems to be a far more remarkable end of them then proper sealing For Sacraments are such kind of signs as those in the solemnization of marriage in giving hands putting on a ring expressing Consent c. Or as the Crowning of a King or the listing a Souldier or as a twig a turf or a Key in giving possession So that the main use followeth the meer sealing 17. As Gods Universal Grant of Christ and pardon is but Conditional in form or sense to which the Sacrament sealeth so the minister that distributeth the Universal to singulars must do it but Conditionally If thou A. B. wilt Believe thou shalt have Christ and Life So that still it is no
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