Honour or of the Prince as one to honour him that is the sole condition of his Honour Nor is it accepting of Riches that is the sole condition of enriching him But it is entirely the accepting of the Prince for his General and thankfull acknowledging his Ransom that is the Condition of all together and hath as near an interest in one part of the Benefit as another Or suppose the condemned prisoner be a woman and the Prince having Ransomed her doth send this offer to her That if she will thankfully acknowledge his favour and take him for her Redeemer and Husband and Prince to love honour and obey him he will deliver her and make her his Queen and she shall partake of all his Honour and Riches Here now if the Question be What it is on his part that Redeemed her What that Delivered her What that honoured her What that enriched her each effect must be ascribed to its proper cause and the causes not confounded And she must distinctly apprehend by what way and cause each priviledge comes But if you ask only What it is on her part that is the condition of enjoying these Benefits Why it is but one entire undivided Condition before mentioned Will you here subtilly distinguish and say that her taking him to deliver her is the sole act which is the condition of her Deliverance and her taking him to Dignifie her is the sole condition of her Dignity and her taking him as Rich or to enrich her is the sole condition of her enriching No It is one undivided condition that equally gives her interest in all Much less is it the Accepting of his Riches that is the sole condition of enriching her Yet if any should in one Question include both What on his part did save her from death and what on her part then it must be exprest as Paul did in the forementioned text in our case It is her Marrying or Accepting a Mercifull Redeemer I should wrong you by seeming to imply a doubt of your Apprehensiveness if I should spend words in application of this to our case Having been so much too tedious already I will only adde That the common doctrine in this Point requires that there be as many acts of faith as there are Benefits from Christ to be received and that each one is the Instrument of receiving that particular benefit and so one act of faith Justifieth another Adopteth c. And that act which receiveth Justification which they call the Passive instrument thereof in the upshot of all their Disputes they so describe that it is apparent they mean ipsam Justificationem passivam And so with them Credere Justificari must be Synonimall termes For so to receive Justification is nothing but to be Justified §. 2. Mr Bl. THere are several acts of Justifying faith Heb. 11. but those are not acts of Justification It is not Abrahams obedience Moses self-deniall Gideon or Sampsons valour that were their Justification but his Blood who did enable them in these duties by his spirit Paul went in these duties as high as they living in more clear light and under more abundant grace I doubt not but he out-tapt them and yet he was not thereby Justified as 1 Cor. 4.4 §. 2. R. B. 1. IT is a strange phrase to call any act of faith An act of Justification If you speak properly you must mean it efficienter vel constitutivè either that some act of faith is an act of Justification as the efficient but that 's farre from truth to beleeve and to justifie differ or else that it is an act constituting Justification But that is as far from truth for then Credere should be Justificari If you speak improperly you must mean either An act effecting Justification as it seems you do which is unsound as well as improper or else An act which is the Condition of Justification which is sound though improper 2. Who knows whether you mean that none of those acts Heb. 11. are acts of Justification or not all of them The proper importance of your words is for the former But that is a dangerous untruth for vers 13. is judged by our Divines to contain a proper description of justifying faith they saw the promises i. e. the good promised a farre off and were perswaded of them and embraced them c. But which soever you mean you should have proved your assertion It will be easily acknowledged that many there mentioned were not the great and principall act which is the Condition of Justification as begun But yet they may be lesser acts which are secondary parts of the condition of continuing their Justification I do not think but that act by which Noah became the heir of the righteousness which is by faith v. 7. had a hand in continuing his Justification though it were the preparing the Ark being moved with fear I think that act by which Abel obtained witnesse that he was righteous and that by which Enoch pleased God and without which it is impossible to please him had some hand in Justification I think these four great acts mentioned v. 6. are part of the condition of Justification 1. To beleeve that God is viz. that he is God the Chief Good the first and last the principal efficient and Ultimate End c. 2. The diligent seeking of him 3. Beleeving that he is a rewarder of them that do so 4. Coming to him If this be distinct from the second When the holy Ghost doth of purpose in the whole Chapter set forth the glory and excellency of faith I dare not be one that shall imagine that he speaks all this of a lower sort of faith and quite left out the noblest part which justifieth from his praises 3. Yet you should not in my judgement have called Abrahams obedience Moses self-denial Gideons valour acts of Justifying faith Are these acts of faith If you mean that these acts are fruits of faith its true Or if you mean that an act of faith did excite the soul to each of these acts and so you mean not the obedience valour c. but the act of faith which excited it then you might call those acts of justifying faith But if I had called valour and obedience so I should have been blamed 4. What mean you to say Obedience and Valour was not their Justification Do you think that any act of faith is Justification You mean if I may conjecture from your after-doctrine the instrument of Justification 5. But then how come you to say next that it is Christs blood The blood of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification which improperly may be called also the Matter of it But I think it is neither our Justification formally nor the instrument of it in proper speech 6. But I thought the contest in your Dispute had been Which is the justifying act of faith and which not and therefore when you denied those in Heb. 11.
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
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
not as a Redeemer by ransom or as one that is to justifie us but not to Sanctifie or Rule us each of these is true in suo genere but false if they pretend to be that which Scripture calls Faith in Christ and which denominateth Believers So is it to believe with the understanding speculatively and superficially and yet to Dissent with the will I think if a man say This is the Son the heir come let us kill him and the inheritance shall be ours we will not have this man Reign over us that these are not true Believers nor have right to Baptism though their belief that he is the heir be a Dogmatical Faith true in its kinde 2. As Amesius Medulla li. 1. cap. 3. § 20. Quamvis in Scripturis aliquando Assensus veritati quae est de Deo Christo Joh. 1.50 habetur pro vera fide includitur tamen semper specialis fiducia atque adeo omnibus in locis ubi sermo est de salutari fide vel praesupponitur fiducia in Messiam indicatur tantum determinatio vel applicatio ejus ad personam Jesu Christi vel per assensum illum designatur tanquam effectum per suam causam And as words of Knowledge and Assent do in Scripture oft imply affection and consent so on the contrary words of consent and affection do alwaies imply Knowledge and Assent And therefore Faith is sometime denominated from the Intellectual act Believing and sometime from the Wills act Receiving 3. Do you not know how ordinarily even saving Faith it self is denominated from the Intellectual Act alone when yet you 'l confess the Will is necessarily an Agent in this many texts might quickly be cited to that end Those that Amesius citeth may suffice Joh. 11.25 26 27. He that believeth in me shall live Believest thou this yea Lord I believe that thou art that Christ the Son of God that was to come into the world Such was Nathaniels faith Joh. 1.49 50. 1 Joh. 4.15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God God dwelleth in him and be in God And 1 Joh. 5.1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God Here is more then Right to Baptism The great doubt was then whether Christ were the true Messiah and therefore this was the greatest and most difficult part of Faith to Assent to this and therefore the whole is denominated from it it being supposed when they believed him to be the only sufficient and faithful Physitian that they were willing to be healed by him in his way 4. If you think as you seem by your answer to do that a man may Assent to the Truth of the Gospel with all his heart and yet be void of Justifying Faith you do not lightly err Though an unregenerate man may believe as many truths as the Regenerate yet not with all his heart Christ saith Math. 13. The word hath not rooting in him Doubtless whether or no the Practical understanding do unavoidably determine the Will yet God doth not sanctifie the understanding truly and leave the Will unsanctified which must be said if the Dogmatical Faith that is the Intellectual Assent of a wicked man be as strong as that of a true Believer Dr. Downam in his Treatise of Justification and against Mr. Pemble hath said enough of this to which I refer you I take that answer as equal to silence which yet Mr. Bl. so highly values as to say It will take away all scruple §. 52. HAving Replyed to your Answer I shall be bold to trouble you with some more Arguments to this point Mr. Blake affirmeth that Justifying Faith is the great Condition to which Baptism engageth and therefore not prerequisite to Baptism and that an acknowledgment of the Necessity of such Faith with engagement to it is sufficient for a title to the Seal and so it is a Dogmatical Faith which entitles to Baptism in which Baptism we must engage to believe with a lively and working Faith hereafter Against this Doctrine I argue 1. From Authority beginning with the lowest Argument The Reverend Assembly in their Advice for Church Government Printed after the Directory pag. 58. of the Church say thus Particular Churches in the Primitive times were made up of Visible Saints viz. of such as being of Age professed faith in Christ and obedience unto Christ according to the Rule of Faith and Life taught by Christ and his Apostles and of their children and they cite Act. 2 â—8 41 last compared with Act. 5.14 1 Cor. 1.2 compared with 2 Cor. 9.13 Now if the Profession of this Saint-ship in Faith and obedience according to the Rule were necessary then the profession of Justifying Faith was necessary For this is justifying Faith without doubt And if so then it is not a Faith short of this which is the condition of Church member-ship for then the profession of that other imperfect Faith might suffice of which more anon See also the Assemblies Confession cap. 28. § 1.6 and the two Catechisms of Baptism where 1. observe the ends of Baptism that it Sealeth Remission Regeneration Adoption c. 2. the subject that none are to be Baptized at age till they profess their Faith in Christ and Obedience to him Which if they do sincerely no doubt that Faith is no less then justifying See also what that truly Iudicious Learned Reverend Divine Mr. Gataker hath Replyed to Dr. Ward viz. against those words which I confuted not knowing that it was Mr. Gataker that the Doctor dealt with in Mr. Gatakers Desceptatio de Baptismatis Infantilis vi efficaciâ— pag. 71. where he also cites Luther Calvin Bucer Whitaker c. and therefore I will cite no more Mr. Marshal in his late Sermon for Unity I mentioned before A hundred might easily and truly be cited to this purpose Argu. 2. My Second Argument shall be from the Testimony and Practice of the purest Antiquity 1 Justin Martyr in his second Apologie relating the Churches custom in Baptizing saith As many as being perswaded do believe these things to be true which we teach and do promise to live according to them they first learn by prayer and fasting to beg pardon of God for their former sins our selves also joyning our prayer and fasting Then they are brought to the water and born again in the same way as we our selves were born again So for the other Sacrament he addeth This food we call the Eucharist to which no man is admitted but he that believeth the Truth of our Doctrine being washed in the Laver of Regeneration for Remission of sin and that so liveth as Christ hath taught 2. Irenaeus l. 4. c. 13. shews that Abrahams Faith by which he was justified is the same with the Christian Faith yea with that whereby we begin to be saved And cap. 76. having reference to the Baptismal Covenant wherein men deliver up themselves to Christ he saith Si igitur tradideris ei quod
Souls But for my part I never yet saw the face of that sober man to my knowledge who durst say That he was as sure or as confident of his own sincerity as of the Truth of Gods Word and particularly of that Promise He that Believeth shall not perish but have Everlasting life And as I have oft said already The Conclusion may not be said to be de fide unless the other Proposition he as evident as that which is de fide because Conclusio sequitur partem deteriorem Yea let me be bold to grow a little higher and to tell you that it seems to me impossible and a contradiction that any man should be more certain that he Believeth sincerely then he is that Gods Word is true or that the Promise is Gods Word which he doth Believe For the truth of God in his Word is the formal object of Faith without which there can be no Faith No man therefore can be more certain that he believes truly then he is that Gods Word is true For to Believe is to apprehend the certain Truth of the Word And none can be more certain that he apprehends the word as certain then he is that the word is certain If you say I am certain that I believe the certainty of the word but weakly I answer At lest then the saving sincerity of your Faith will be as uncertain to you as the word is if not the being of that Faith And then there is no more certainty I think rationally and ordinarily then there is Evidence So much for that Controversie and so of all so far as I have observed which Mr. Blake hath with me or hath called me to give an account of my judgement Whether the Covenant of Grace require perfection and accept sincerity THough I have done with what Mr. Blake saith to me and have no desire to do any thing unnecessary in a way of Controversie yet because it is of the like nature with a subject formerly handled or tends to clear up some things about it I will very briefly touch on his Arguments pag. 107.108 upon this Question §. 82. Mr. Bl. A Second opinion is that the Covenant of Grace requires perfection in the exactest way without help of these mens distinctions in an equal degree with the Covenant of Works but with this difference in the Covenant of Works there is no indulgence or dispensation in case of failing but the penalty takes hold the Curse follows upon it But the Covenant of Grace though it call for perfection such is the exactness of it yet it accepts of sincerity such is the qualification of it through Grace or the mercy in it If I should take up any opinion in the world for the Authors sake or those that have appeared as Patrons of it then I should embrace this The Reverence deservedly due to him that I suppose first manifested himself in it hath caused it to finde great entertainment But upon more then twenty years thoughts about it I finde it labouring under manifold inconveniences §. 82. R. B. 1. IT may seem audaciousness in a young Divine to question that which you shall now so considerately deliver after more then twenty years thoughts But no prejudice must hinder us from a further enquiry after the Truth 2. I began to conjecture that the Reverend person that you mean is Mr. Ball and yet methinks you should not suppose him the Author It is therefore sure some one much elder 3. For the thing it self if I may shoot my bolt upon a shorter deliberation I conceive that all your difference with the men of that Judgement is occasioned by the Ambiguity and various acception of the word Covenant of Grace which in my judgement you ought to have removed by distinguishing before you had argued against their opinion The term Covenant of Grace is sometime taken strictly for the Contract alone either 1. for the full Contract which is mutual or by both parties which is most properly called a Covenant Or 2. for the engagement of one part only 1. either for Gods Promise 2. or mans Herein the Condition is implyed not as commanded but as tendred Now it is certain that taking the Covenant in this restrained sense it doth not command Perfection of obedience for it commands nothing at all nor doth it propound it as the Condition for then we were undone But then it must be known that this is too restrained a sense for us ordinarily to use the word Covenant in God hath made no such Covenant with us which is not a Law in one respect as well as a Covenant in another He layes not by his Soveraignty in Covenanting Nay they are all more properly called Laws then Covenants Even the Promise it self is most properly Lex Gratiae Remedians Like an act of Oblivion or Pardon to a Nation of Rebels Yet comparatively the Law of Grace is far more fitly called a Covenant then the Law of Nature which perhaps is never so called in Scripture because the Promissory part is the predominant part in the Law of Grace the precept being but subservient to that but the preceptive part is most predominant in the Law of nature the Promise being not so much as expressed by Moses and obscure in nature it self so that it will hold great dispute whether God were obliged at all to Reward man with heavenly Glory yea or any proper Reward besides non-punishment which is improperly a Reward The Lutherans are the leaders of that evil custom and conceit of denying the Gospel to be a Law 2. In the next place therefore the word Covenant of Grace is taken for the New Law containing Precept Prohibition Promise and Threatning And here it is taken 1. so narrowly as to comprize only the Precept of Believing with the Promise and Threatning annext as being indeed the principal parts 2. Sometime more largely as containing also the Precepts that Christ hath given the Church since his coming that were not before given Principally that of Believing Jesus to be the Christ and also those of Ministery Ordinances Church-Assemblies c. together with the Doctrines or Articles of Faith which he since revealed 3. Sometime it is more largely taken for that whole Systeme of Doctrines Histories and Laws Precepts Promises and Threats which directly concern the Recovery of faln mankinde 4. Sometime for as much of these as was delivered before Christs coming in Promises Prophesies and Types c. 5. Sometime for as much of these as yet remains in force whether delivered to the Church before the Incarnation or since for many Covenants or Evangelical Promises and Precepts are ceased now that were in force before as that Christ should be born and they should accept his birth c. This last sense containeth the Doctrine of Redemption by Christ and the History of his birth life and Death and Resurrection as Narrations of the occasion end and matter are usual appurtenances of a Law as also the Precepts
but tenderness and brotherly Love as to my person and no such inclination to extreams in his Doctrine as I found in some others but much Moderation and Sobriety as indeed the Gravity Piety and Integrity of the man would promise to any that know him Only I thought it might have been more convenient to him to me and to others if I had seen his exceptions before they had been published that so having known what I would reply he might have published only so much as he remained unsatisfied in But as it seems his Judgement was otherwise so is it no whit to me offensive Yet when I had read his Book it was my Resolution to send him privately my Reply that so we might consider how farre we were agreed and how farre the difference was onely seeming and about words and might publish only the remainder to the world by joynt Consent The Reasons of this Resolution were these First Because I was loath by tedious altercations to hinder the Reader from discerning the Truth It is the course of most voluminous Disputers to tire their Readers with Contendings about words that they can hardly finde out the true state of the Controversie much less discern on which side is the Truth Which might be much remedied if men would but lovingly first debate the matter in private and cut off all the superfluities and verbal Quarrels and then put out only the material differences by joynt Consent having Corrected even in the language and manner of debating whatsoever was displeasing or seemed injurious to either party Secondly Because I unfeignedly abhorre contending and never wrote any thing that way but when I was unavoidably necessitated Thirdly Because I so well know my own frailty and proneness to be over-eager and keen and unmannerly in my stile and the frailty of most Brethren in being Impatient hereof yea of many in judging themselves wronged when they are not and making some plain speeches which were but necessary or innocent to seem proud contemptuous and sleighting as to mens persons racking them to a sense that was never intended I therefore thought it safest to avoid all occasions of such mistakes which may be injurious to themselves as well as to me Fourthly Because the Lord hath of late years by a strange unresistible work of his power fastned in my soul so deep an Apprehension of the Evil of Dissentions and of the Excellency and Necessity of the Unity of Brethren and the Peace of the Church and in order hereto of the healing of our Divisions that it sticks in my thoughts night and day and the Zeal of such a Reconciliation doth eat me up so that I make it the main study and business of my Meditations which way I might do any thing towards its accomplishment And I was much afraid lest if I wrote by way of Controversie I might by exasperating my Brethren hinder this happy work He that knoweth my heart knoweth that these were my thoughts Hereupon I did in the first Page signifie to M. Blake this my Resolution which when I was forced to alter I would not alter the words of my writing but having given this account of the reason of them I shall let them go as I wrote them Before I had finished my Reply to Mr. Blake comes out Mr. Kendal's Book against M. Goodwin with his Digression against me After-this I was informed of divers others that were ready to write against my Doctrine and some that had written and were ready to publish it and divers others that were desirous to send me their Animadversions I did therefore apprehend and so did many learned Friends an unavoidable Necessity of appearing more publickly both to spare my Friends the labour of writing the same things to me over and over which so many others had written before and to spare my self the time and pains of endless private Replies which have this three years taken me up and hindered me from more profitable work and also to prevent mens publication of more such writings as have already been published seeing when none know what I can say against them the rest may go on in the way as these have done and trouble themselves and the world in vain Besides I understood that some were offended at my silence as mis-interpreting it to be from contempt Being therefore necessitated to do something of this kinde I could not according to the Laws of Justice or Friendship deal publickly with any but those that had begun to deal publickly with me It s true there hath been long unanswered a Book of Mr. Owens against some things which I had wrote which concerned him But I never thought fit nor yet do to Reply to that 1. Partly because it containeth so little matter of reall difference between him and me and most of that is answered by Mr. Blake and in my Reply to Mr. Kendall The main Points being Whether Christ suffered the same which the Law threatned or the Value or that which was equivalent wherein he yieldeth as much as I need and Whether the Covenant be Conditional and Whether the Obligation to Punishment be dissolved before we Believed sinned or were born And to vindicate the Truth in these two or three Points I conceive it not so meet a way to do it in Answer to that Book wherein ten times more words would be bestowed in altercations and upon the by 2. Besides I was never never necessitated to a Reply to that Book nor once desired and I will do nothing of that kinde which I know how to avoid 3. But indeed my greatest reason was the consciousness of my temerity in being so foolishly drawn to begin with him and the consciousness of my fault in one or two unmannerly words of him and consequently the consciousness of my duty to be first silent It is not fit that I should both begin and end But these Brethren that I here Reply to did begin with me Upon these Reasons I sent not my papers to Mr. Blake but resolved to publish them with my Reply to Mr. K. As for Mr. K. himself I know not the man but by his writings he appears to be a Learned man And I will hope his humility may be answerable to his Learning though he here express it not We are all poor frail sinners and above all do hardly Master our Pride the fire whereof in an unmortified soul doth make fewell to it self of Gods excellent Gifts till it have turned them all into salt and ashes That which this Learned man hath troubled himself to write concerning my self I will not insist on It is not for my self that I am disputing but for the Truth so farre as I know it I can truly say as Augustine to Hierom Obsecro te per mansuetudinem Christi ut si te laesi dimittas mihi nec me vicissim laedendo malum pro malo reddas Laedes enim si mihi tacueris errorem meum quem forte inveneris in Scriptis
that Conclusion to be de fide § 75. pag. 133 That Divine Faith hath Evidence as well as Certainty Rob. Baronius and Rada's words to the contrary examined § 75. pag. 134 The difference between Mr. Bl. and me contracted and a plain â—ogent Argument added to prove that the Conclusion fore-mentioned is not sealed § 76. pag. 139 The possibility but vanity of Conditional sealing § 77. pag. 140 More of Mr. Bl's Reasons answered § 78 to 81. pag. 141 The danger of teaching men that they are bound to believe that they are Justified and shall be saved § 81. pag. 142 In what sense the Covenant commandeth perfect obedience § 82. pag. 144 Mr. Bl's Reasons examined concerning the Covenants commanding perfection § 82 to 91. pag. 144 How far true believers are Covenant-breakers § 84. pag. 148 The Covenant is Gods Law § 91. pag. 152 The Conclusion Apologetical against the charge of singularity § 92. pag. 152 The Prologue MY Reverend and dearly beloved Brother I remember that when I met you last at Shrewsbury you told me that you had sent to the Presse a Treatise of the Covenants and desired me not to be offended if you published in it some things against my Judgement Your Treatise is since come to my hands and upon a brief perusall of some part of it I am bold to let you know this much of my thoughts 1. That I very much value and honour your Learned Labours and had I been Mr Vines or Mr Fisher I might rather have given in some respects a higher commendations of your Book And especially I love it for its sound discoveries of the Vanity of the Antinomians 2. So farre am I from being offended at your Writing against my Writings that as I have oft said concerning Mr Owen since I saw his Book against me even so do I by you I never honoured you so much though much nor loved you so dearly though dearly before as since for I see more of your worth then I saw before For where I erre why should I be offended with any brother for loving Gods Truth and mens souls above my Errours or any seeming Reputation of mine that may be ingaged in them and for seeking to cure the hurt that I have done God forbid that I should seek to maintain a Reputation obtained by or held in an opposition to the Truth I take all my Errors in Theology even in the highest revealed points participaliter to be my sinnes but especially my divulged Errors And I take him for my best friend that is the greatest enemy to my sins And where I erre not I have little cause for my own sake to be offended at your opposition For as you are pleased to honour me too highly both in your Epithetes and tender dealing yea in being at so much pains with any thing of mine and in stooping to a publick opposition of that which you might have thought more worthy of your contempt so I know you did it in a zeal for God and Truth and you thought all was Error that you opposed so that in the general we fight under one Master and for one Cause and against one Enemy You are for Christ 1. For Truth and against Errors so farre as you know it and so am I. I know you wrote not against Me but against my Errors reall or supposed And truly though I would not be shamelesse or impenitent nor go so far as Seneca to say we should not object a common fault to singular persons Vid. Cor. de Irâ l. 3. c. 26. p. mihi 452. no more then to reproach a Blackmore with his colour yet I see so much by the most Learned and Judicious to assure me that humanum est errare and that we know but in part that I take it for no more dishonour to have the world know that I erre then for them to know that I am one of their Brethren a son of Adam and not yet arrived at that blessed state where that which is childish shall cease and all that is imperfect shall be done away Only if my Errors be greater then ordinary I must be humbled more then ordinary as knowing that my sin is the cause that I have no greater illumination of the Spirit I have truly published to the world my indignation against the proud indignation of those men that account him their enemy that shall publiquely contradict them 2. Yet must I needs tell you that in the points which you contradict I finde no great alteration upon my understanding by your Writings whether it be from the want of evidence of truth in your Confutation or through the dulnesse of my Apprehension I hope I shall better be able to judge when I have heard from you next I think I may safely say It is not from an unwillingness to know the Truth And one further difference there is in our Judgements For my Judgement is that it is not so convenient nor safe a way to publish suddenly a reply to your opposition as to tell you my thoughts privately seeing we live so near and to bring the Points in difference by friendly collations to as narrow a compass as we can and make as clear a discovery of each others meanings as may be and then by joynt consent to tell the world our several Judgements and our Reasons as lovers of the Truth and of each other that so others may have the benefit of our friendly Collations and Enquiries and may be thereby advantaged for the more facile discovery of the Truth Truly I would have all such Controversies so handled that all the vain altercations might lye in the dust in our studies and that which is published might be in one Volume friendly subscribed by both parties In this I perceive by your practise your Judgement differs from mine and that you rather judge it fittest to speak first by the Presse that the world may hear us I crave your acceptance of these Papers rather in this private way and that you will signifie to me in what way I shall expect your return wherein I think it fitter you please your self then me I shall faithfully give you an account of the effect of your Arguments on my weak understanding but not in the order as they lye in your Book but I will begin with those Points which I judge to be of greatest moment §. 1. Mr Blake Treat of Covenants pag. 79. IT is also true that faith accepts Christ as a Lord as well as a Saviour But it is the Acceptation of him as a Saviour not as a Lord that Justifies Christ Rules his People as a King Teacheth them as a Prophet but makes Atonement for them only as a Priest by giving himself in Sacrifice his blood for Remission of sins These must be distinguished but not divided Faith hath an eye at all the blood of Christ the command of Christ the doctrine of Christ but as it lies and fastens on his blood so it Justifies
of a Christian which they assumed Pag. 192. he saith All professed Christians so called are in an outward and single Covenant 1. What those that are called professed Christians and are not No sure that 's not the meaning else mens miscalling might put them in Covenant It is then those that are so and are called so But will it not serve if they are so unless called so 2. He means either those that profess the name of Christianity or the Thing Of the insufficiency of the first I spoke before For the second if they profess the whole Essence of Christianity undissembledly I think they are truly Regenerate If they profess but part as to the Matter both of Assent and Consent of which I spoke before in the Conclusions and which we have in this County lately set down in our Profession of Faith then it is not Christianity which they profess for part of the essence is not the Thing where an essential part is wanting the form is absent If it be the whole matter of Christianity that is professed but Dissembledly then as he is equivocally or analogically a Believer or Christian so I yield he is a member of the Visible Church which so far as it is only Visible is equivocally called The Church of which I have fullier spoken in Answer to Mr Tombes Praecursor I know Mr Bl. thinks that there may be an undissembled Profession which yet may not be of a saving Faith But then I yet conceive it is not an entire Profession of the whole essential object of Christian faith viz. of Assent and Consent It will be a hard saying to many honest Christians to say that a man not justified may believe every fundamental Article and withall truly profess Repentance of all his sins and to Take God for his Soveraign to Rule him and his chief Good to be enjoyed to his happiness and to take Christ for his Lord and only Saviour and his Word for his Law and Rule and the holy Ghost for his Guide and Sanctifier and the rest which is essential to Christianity Pag. 192. He saith of all that externally make Profession These engage themselves upon Gods terms But if they do so sincerely they are sincere Christians If not sincerely they are but equivocally Christians Some think that in the 11th Chapter of the 3d part of my Book of Rest I gave too much to an unregenerate estate and yet I think there is nothing contrary to this that I now say He that professeth not to preferre God and the Redeemer before all other things professeth not Christianity and he that professeth this and lieth not is a Regenerate justified Christian Pag. 200. he describeth his unregenerate Christians to be such as Accept the terms of the Covenant And this none doth indeed but the sanctified If Mr. Bl. will say that the unregenerate may do it he will make them true believers For what is true faith but an Accepting of Christ and his Benefits on the Covenant terms Though I confess others may falsly say they Accept him Pag. 220. he saith Laws tendred by a Prince and received by a People make up the Relation of King and people yet indeed that 's not true for it is the Receiving the man to be our King which is antecedent to the receiving his Laws that makes the Relation A marriage Covenant tendred by a man and accepted by a Virgin makes up the Relation of Husband and Wife Covenant draughts between man and man for service make up the Relation of Master and Servant Now the Gospel Covenant is all of these between God and a People Rep. The Accepting Christ in this Covenant is true Justifying Faith If an unregenerate man have this indeed then he is justified and Faith and Justification are common things which I will not believe If Mr. Bl. mean that the external profession of this Acceptance alone doth make up the Relation I say as before It may oblige the Professour but makes not up the Relation of Real Christians because God conseâ—teth not nor is actually in Covenant and obliged The differences Mr. Bl. must take notice of between his humane Covenants and ours with God or else he will marre all Men know not one anothers hearts and therefore make not Laws for hearts nor impose Conditions on hearts and therefore if both parties do profess Consent though dissemblingly they are both obliged and the Covenant is mutual But God offers to Consent only on Condition that our hearts Consent to his terms and therefore if we profess Consent and do not Consent God Consenteth not nor is as it were obliged Next Mr. Bl. proceeds there to tell us that the Accepting the Word preached is the note of the Church But that is a more lax ambiguous term then the former Some call it an accepting the Word when they are content to hear it Some when they speculatively believe the truth of it These are no true notes of true Christians or Churches in the first sense of the word Church Others Accept but part of that word which is the necessary object of Faith of whom the like may he said It is the Accepting Christ and Life in him offered by this word which is Christianity it self or true Faith and the profession of this is that which makes a man a Member of the Visible Church He may accept it for his Infants also So much for the indagation of Mr. Bl's meaning about the description of his visible Christians Next what he means by Covenant I confess I despair of knowing Sometime he speaks as if he meant it but of their own act of Covenant whereby they oblige themselves But ordinarily it is evident that he speaks of a mutual Covenant â—nd makes God to be also in Covenant with them But what Covenant of God is tâ—is Pag. 192. He saith they are in an outward and single Covenant But what he means by a single Covenant I know not He there also chooseth to express himself in Paraeus words who distinguisheth inter beneficia foederis which he denieth them and Jus foederis which he alloweth them But I confess I know not what Jus foederis is except one of these two things 1. A Right to enter Covenant with Christ and so have Infidels 2. Or a Right to the Benefits promised in the Covenant and this he denieth them If he meaneth as Parâ—eus seems a Right to be esteemed as Covenanters and used as Covenanters by the Church though indeed God is not in Covenant with them this we easily grant But Mr. Bl's common phrase is that they are in the outward Covenant and what that is I cannot tell I know what it is to covenant ore tenus only outwardly or by a dissembled profession or else a profession maimed or not understood and I have said that hereby they may further oblige themselves so far as the creature can be said to oblige it self who is not sui Juris but wholly Gods and is under his
nor is it onely de suturo but de praesenti A consent to have Christ for our Lord Redeemer Saviour Head and Husband in present and for the time to come though the very relation consented to doth indeed oblige us to the future duties of that Relation By this time I leave it to the Reader to judge who it is that introduced confusion about the Covenant and whether this be an error of the lower size As for that you adde that then there is no Covenant-breaking I Reply 1. Qâ—oad essentiam possibilitatem there is 2. Quoad existentiam there is a breaking of meer Verbal and of Erring half Covenants But if you think that sound Covenanting may be utterly broken then you are against the certaintie of perseverance As for the texts you cite I say 1. The Israelites broke Gods commands which are called his Covenants 2. They broke their particular Covenants about reforming Idolatrie and such particular sins 3. They broke their Verbal and equivocal Covenant or Promise to God whereby they seemed to Accept him on his terms but did not and therefore had not his obligation again to them but yet thereby obliged themselves Your 2. Absurditie is that then there are no Hypocrites Reply Rather Then all unregenerate professors are Hypocrites They pretend meerly to real proper Covenanting and they do Covenant but Verbally and equivocally Your Answers to the objection therefore pag. 211 212 have not the least strength where you say The Covenant which they enter is their pretence for God I Reply they do therefore but pretend to take God for their God which is the proper Covenanting How else could you next say that they are guiltie of hypocrisie Doubtless they had hypocrisie as well in entering the Covenant as after in pretending to stand to it Is it not you rather that consequentially say There is no Hypocrites among these at least in Covenanting who make them all to Covenant truly and unfeignedly And where you say that then they do but pretend to the stage and to hypocrisie It is a strange feigned consequence without the least shew of proof What! is he but a pretender to Hypocrisie that takes on him a Christian when he is none Suppose he never Covenanted or he that takes on him to consent or covenant in heart when he doth it but in words and wilfully dissembles Yea if they think they Accept Christ not knowing what Christ is and so do not Accept him as he is offered them and yet go on in a supposition that they are Christians these seem to have done what they did not and to be what they are not and therefore are Hypocrites though not purposely dissembling For your 3. Absurdity I have said enough against that charge to Mr. Tombes which shall stand till you confute it as the confutation of yours And so much for your feigned Absurdities §. 42. Mr. Bl. TO make the Visible Seal of Baptism which is the Priviledge of the Church Visible to be of equal latitude with the Seal of the Spirit which is peculiar to invisible members is a Paradox §. 42. R. B. BUt you take it for granted that we do so which is too easie disputing We give the Seal of Baptism to all that seem sound Believers and their seed and we say the Seal of the sanctifying Spirit is onely theirs that Are such Believers But if you speak onely of Covenant-Right to Baptism Coram Deo by his gift of Covenant then I make them of the same extent supposing that by the Seal of the Spirit you mean somewhat common to every true believer 3. But if it be the formalis Ratio of Sealing that you look at I say God sealeth to the wicked his Covenant or Promise as it is made to them of which before He sealed the conditional Covenant which they seemed to Accept which if they had not seemed to Accept he would not have commanded the annexing of the Seal and so God may be said to do it in that he commandeth his Ministers to do it But it is not such a sealing as leaves God actually obliged to fulfill the promise as he is to them that perform the condition But of this more in its own place §. 43. Mr. Bl. THe great conditon to which Baptism engageth is not a prerequisite in baptism This is plain no man is bound to make good his condition before engagement to conditions no servant is tyed to do his wook before he hath received his earnest no Souldier to fight before he is listed or hath given in his name But faith that is Justifying to Accept Christ is the Condition to which Baptism engageth §. 43. R. B. WHat is the conclusion therefore Justifying faith is not a prerequisite in Baptism or according to the simile therefore no man is bound to aceept Christ to Justification before he is baptized I confess the reading of such passages in Grave Learned Godly Divines and that with such confidence uttered as undoubted truth and that in zeal to save the Church from the errors of us that are contrarie minded doth very much convince me of humane frailtie and that the best of men do know but in part and in a little part too and it makes me less angrie at those unlearned mistaken men that have of late so troubled the Church and to say with Seneca Iniquus est qui commune vitium singulis objicit c. quanto in his Justior Venia sit quae per totum gâ—nus humanum vulgata sunt Omnes inconsulti improvidi sumus omnes incerti queruli ambitiosi Quid lenioribus verbis ulcus publicum abscondam Omnes mali sumus Quicquid itaque in alio reprehenditur id unusquisque in suo sinu invenicâ— Quid illius pallorem illius maciem notas Pestilentia est Placidiores itaque invicem sumus Mali inter malos vivimus But to the matter 1. Then it seems if a man believe sincerely and savingly the main use of Baptism as engaging is past already Must any sound believer then be Baptised or onely unsound believers and Infidels that will promise to believe hereafter But I will shew the foulness of this error anon and therefore let it pass now 2. But you say This is plain to whom all men have not the truth that are confident that they have it I see that you say No man is bound to make good his Condition before engagement c. very dangerous It is not our condition only nor principally as to the efficient obligation nor at all as to the Justification Are we poor worms our own Gods and Lords that we should be disobliged till we will be pleased to oblige our selves Our faith is Gods Condition as the Imposer three several Bonds hath he laid upon us 1. As Legislator of the Law of Grace he hath commanded us to believe in and accept an offered Christ And is Gods command insufficient to oblige us till we oblige our selves then more happy are Pagans then
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
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
I believe from whence the Conclusion will follow I shall be pardoned and saved And I infer the Major being sealed the Conclusion that rightly issues out of it having its strength from it is sealed likewise sealed to him that can make good that Assumption But I Believe and upon these terms that he be a believer §. 76. R. B. 1. THe difference is so small that were it not for some scattered by-passages I should scarce have replyed to you 2. All the quarrel ariseth from the divers understanding of the term sealed I suppose that you include the confirming of the Receiver and the conferring of Right to the Benefit both which I have said are done Conditionally as being to follow the Delivery and Reception whereas I take it for the Testimonium secundarium or that Obsignation whereby the Instrument is owned the following effects belonging to it in a further respect I ever granted that by the sealing of the Conditional Promise the Believer hath a singular help to raise the Conclusion and be confirmed in it but not a help sufficient without the discerning of his own Faith which is the Assumption So that if you will participaliter and consequenter the Conclusion may be said to be sealed to him that hath the Condition whether he see it oâ— not But totaliter directè only the Conditional grant is sealed 3. The Conclusion issues from and hath its strength from both Premises jointly and no more from one alone then if it were none at all and therefore where only one of the Premises is sealed and the other unsealed there the Conclusion can be but as I said participaliter consequenter sealed And though I grant thus much to you for reconciliation yet I conceive it unfit to say at all as in proper speech that the Conclusion is sealed which I make good by this Argument Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem vel deteriorem At Propositio non obsignata est pars debilior vel deterior therefore Conclusio sequitur Propositionem non obsignatam And so it is on the same grounds to be denominated not sealed as a Conclusion is to be denominated Contingent when one of the Premises is Contingent and the other Necessary or to be Negative when one of the Premises is Negative and the other Affirmative or to be Particular when one of the Premises is Particular and the other Universal And therefore I still say that it is fittest for you and me to say that this Conclusion Thou A. B. art Justified and hast Right to Salvation is an unsealed Conclusion till you can prove the Minor sealed Thou A. B. art a sincere Believer For my part I know not what objection can be made against either part of the fore-recited Argument the major being a Common Canon or Rule that holds in all Figures and the Minor being yielded by your self else I would answer to it §. 77. Mr. Bl. MR. Baxters fourth and fifth Positions in the closing up of his Discourse should be considered The Sacrament sealeth to Gods part of the Conditional Covenant and sealeth this Conditional Promise not Conditionally but absolutely as of an undoubted Truth To which an easie answer may be given in order to a fair Reconciliation When the Covenant tyes to the Condition and the Sacraments seal upon the same terms that the Covenant tyes the seal is properly Conditional in case there is any such thing in the world as a Conditional seal Neither is this Conditional Promise any absolute undoubted Truth but upon supposal of the Condition put and so both Promise and Seal absolutely bind §. 77. R. B. 1. I Never heard of nor knew a Conditional sealing in the world though I have oft heard of the effects of Obligation and Collation of Right to be Conditional which are not only separable from the Terminus proximus of sealing but also are directly the effects of the Covenant Promise Testament c. only and but remotely of the Seals inasmuch as that Seal is a full owning of the Instrument of Conveyance Yet such a thing as a Conditional sealing may be imagined seeing sealing is a Moral Civil action and so dependeth quoad formam on the will of the Agent after the matter is put the Agent may if he please put the matter now and introduce the form upon a future Condition or a present or a past as if he should set the wax and material seal to a Deed of Gift with this addition I hereby seal to this or own it as my deed if such a man be now living in France or if such a Ship be safe arrived or if such a man shall do such a thing otherwise this shall be no seal But such exceptions or conditions being alwaies added to the Instrument or Principal obligation or conveyance and being of no use as to the seals only I never heard of such nor I think ever shall do For if all these or any of these Conditions be in the Deed or Obligation the Seal doth but confirm that Conditional Obligation though it be absolutely and actually a Seal and therefore doth not oblige the Author actually but conditionally and therefore to feign a Conditional sealing besides the conditional Covenanting or Granting seems very useless and vain to say no more 2. I confess that neither Promise nor Seal binde absolutely till the Condition be performed which I pray you remember hereafter if you be tempted to think any person in Covenant with God the mutual Covenant where both stand obliged before they perform the Condition of the first benefits or right But when you say that the Conditional Promise is not any absolute undoubted Truth but upon supposal of the Condition put you make me see still the necessity of mutual forbearance and that all our writings must have an allowance as it were in respect to some inconsiderateness and the Authors not to be charged with holding all the Doctrines which they write I dare not say it is Mr. Blakes judgment that Gods conditional Promises be not absolute undoubted Truth till men perform the condition 1. Though they are not Absolute Promises yet they are Absolutely and not Conditionally true Otherwise either it must be said that till the condition be performed they are Actually false and Conditionally true or else that they are neither capable of Truth or Falshood The former I will not dare to supppose from you nor yet the latter For whether you put it in this form Whosoever will Believe shall be Justified or in this If thou wilt Believe thou shalt be Justified there is no question that both must be either true or false and not like an Interrogation that is capable of neither 2. And then as it is an Absolute Truth so it is an undoubted Truth For Veraciâ—as Divina est formale objectum fidei and if Gods Truth be not undoubted then our Faith hath an uncertain Foundation and Christianity is not undoubtedly a true Religion But I charge none of