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
pag. 51. Vulgar Divines as that they can thence conclude and publish me a slighter and contemner of my Brethren As if they that know England could be ignorant that the Churches among us have many such guides as may well be called Vulgar Divines Take them by number and judge in those Counties that I am acquainted in whether the greater number be of the Profound or Subtill or Angelical or Seraphical or Irrefragable sort of Doctors or equal to some of these Reverend Excepters whose worth I confess so far beyond my measure that had I spoke of them as Vulgar Divines they might well have been offended But O that it were not true that there are such through most of England Wales and Ireland if any on condition I were bound to Recant at every Market Cross in England with a fagot on my back so be it there were the same number of such choice men as some of these my offended Brethren are in their stead And then who knows not that the Vulgar or ordinary weaker Teachers do take up that opinion which is most in credit and which is delivered by the most Learned Doctors whom they most reverence So that the summe of my speech can be no worse then this It is the most common opinion which is all one as to say It is the opinion of the Vulgar Divines and some of the Learned the other part of the Learned going the other way which is it that men censure for such an approbrious injurious speech Yet I will not wholly excuse it nor this that Mr Bl. toucheth upon I confess it was spoken too carelesly unmannerly harshly and I should better have considered how it might be taken As for Mr Blake's profession That he hath little of their Learning but is wholly theirs in this ignorance I did still think otherwise of him and durst not so have described him but yet my acquaintance with him is not so great as that I should pretend to know him better then he knows himself and I dare not judge but that he speaks as he thinks Let me be bold to shew him part of that which he saith he is wholly ignorant of That our personal inherent Righteousness is not denominated from the old Law or Covenant as if we were called Righteous besides our imputed Righteousness only because our sanctification and good works have some imperfect agreement to the Law of Works I prove thus 1. If no man be called Righteous by the Law of Works but he that perfectly obeyeth so as never to sin then no imperfect obeyer is called Righteous nisi aequivocè by that Law But the Antecedent is true Therefore so is the consequent 2. If the Law of Works do curse and condemn all men then it doth not judge them Righteous nisi aequivocè But it doth curse and condemn all men Therefore c. 3. If the Law of Works do judge us Righteous for our works taking righteous properly and not equivocally then we must be justified by our works according to that Law Lex n. est norma judicii omnis verè justus est justificandus Justificatio Legis est virtualiter justificatio judicis He that condemneth the Just is an abomination to God But we must not by the Law of Works be justified by our works Therefore c. 4. He that is guilty of the breach of all Gods Laws is not denominated Righteous nisi aequivocè by that Law But we break all Gods Laws Therefore Yea he that offendeth in one is guilty of all Reade Brochmond in Jac. 2.10 and Jacob. Laurentius and Paulus Burgensis in Lyra on the same Text. Vid. Placaeum in Thesib Salmuriens Vol. 1. pag. 29. § 13 c. Wotton de Reconcil Part. 2. l. 1. c. 5. n. 16. Twiss Vindic. Grat. li. 2. part 1. c. 15. pag. vol. minore 214. col 2. See whether yours or mine be the Protestants doctrine Here if ever its true that Bonum est ex causis integris 5. If imperfect works are all sinnes or sinfull then they are not our Righteousness according to the Law of works For it justifieth no man for his sins But the former is true Therefore the later I doubt not but you know the state of the Controversie on this point between us and the Papists 6. If the Law of works do denominate a man righteous for imperfect works which truly and properly are but a less degree of unrighteousness then it seems that all wicked men if not the damned are legally righteous For they committed not every act of sin that was forbidden them and therefore are not unrighteous in the utmost possible degree And the Law of works doth not call one degree of obedience Righteousness more then another except it be perfect But certainly all the wicked are not Legally Righteous nisi aequivocè Therefore c. 7. If our Faith Repentance and sincere Obedience may be must be and is called our Righteousness as it is the performance of the conditions of the new Covenant or Law of Grace then at least not only as they have an imperfect agreement with the Law of Works But the antecedent is true Therefore the consequent Let us next peruse Mr. Blake's Reasons why He is wholly theirs in this ignorance He saith I know no other Rule but the old Rule the Rule of the morall Law that is with me a Rule a perfect Rule and the only Rule Rep. Sed distinguendum est The morall Law is taken either for the entire Law of works consisting of Precept and Sanction and that either as it is the meer Law of nature or as containing also what to Adam was superadded or else it is taken only for the meer preceptive part of a Law which is not the whole Law In the later sense it is taken 1. For the preceptive part of the Law given to Adam 2. For the preceptive part of the Law of nature redelivered by Moses 3. For the preceptive part of the Law of nature now used by Christ the Mediator as part of his own Law 2. We must distinguish of a Rule 1. There is the Rule of obedience or what shall be due from us This is the precept under which I comprehend the prohibition it being but praeceptuâ—â— non agendis 2. There is the Rule of reward determining what shall be due to us This is the conditional promise or gift so far forth as it determineth de ipso praemio 3. There is the Rule of punishment determining what shall be due to man upon his sin This is the threatning 4. There is the Rule of the condition of the reward or punishment and of judging to whom they do belong determining on what conditions or terms on their parts men shall be saved or else damned though the same acts were before commanded in the precept as they are duties yet to constitute them conditions of the promise is a further thing This is the promise and threatning as they are conditional or as they constitute
believe all the Creed and Word of God but I will not have Christ Reign over me at the present but I promise that hereafter I will see Doctor Drake against Mr. Humfrey whether they would admit such Hierom argues thus from Baptism to the Administration of the Lords Supper therefore I may do it as to the receiving Quamobrem oro te utaut sacrificandi ei licentiam tribuas cujus baptisma probas aut reprobes ejus baptisma quem non existimas sacerdotem Neque enim fieri potest ut qui in baptismate sanctus est sit apud altare peccator Hier. Dialog adv Luciferian Argu. 17. That Doctrine which feigneth an un-sealed Covenant for giving right to the Seal of the Covenant of Grace is unsound But such is Mr. Blakes therefore No Scripture can be brought to prove such an outward Covenant of Gods And it is against the common reason and custom of men that a second Covenant should be drawn to convey right to the Seal of the first Covenant seeing right to Covenant and Seal go together and if there must be another Covenant to give right to that then by the same reason there must be another to give right to that and another to that and so in infinitum To the Antecedent it is apparent that Mr. Bl. distinguisheth ex parte Dei between the outward and the inward Covenant It is probable that he thus distributes them from the blessings promised whereof some are inward and some outward for though he explain not himself fully yet I know no other sense that it will bear It is evident that his outward Covenant hath no Seal For it is a Covenant de sigillis conferendis If therefore it have a Seal it is either the same which is promised or some other Other I never heard of they nowhere tell us what is the Seal of their outward Covenant The same it cannot be for the same thing cannot be the materia foederis or the Legacy it self or the benefit given and the Seal too of that Covenant whereby it is given Argu. 18. That Doctrine which makes it the regular way in Baptism for all men to promise that which they can neither sincerely promise nor perform is unsound but such is Mr. Blakes therefore The disabilitie which I here speak of is not such as is in a Godly man to do any good without Christ and the Spirit as is in the second cause to act without the first or in a partial cause to act without its compartial but such as is in an unregenerate man to do the work of the Regenerate or in any broken instrument or disabled agent to do its own part of the work till it be altered and made another thing as it were For the consequence it is evident in that 1. No man should ever perform Gods command concerning covenanting 2. And no mans word were fit to be taken concerning the performance of his own Covenant 1. Whether God may or do command some men or all men that which they have not abilitie to perform is nothing to the point For yet he gives some of them abilitie and causeth them to perform it when he makes it necessarie to salvation But in this case God should enable no man regularly to that Baptismal Covenant which he commandeth nor should any obey his command For he commandeth them sincerely to take him for their God and promise to Love Believe and Obey him hereafter For to dissemble he commands none But this no unrenewed Soul can do or ever did to this day They cannot resolve it therefore they cannot sincerely promise it and if justifying Faith must regularly begin after baptism as being the great condition to which it engages and not prerequisite then it is only unregenerate men that are the regular subjects of baptism 2. And its plain that he who cannot sincerely promise and therefore doth it dissemblingly or with a half heart nor is able to perform his promise is not to be credited God himself never enableth an unregenerate man to believe and repent savingly while he is such in sensu composito and therefore is it likely that it is ordinarily and regularly such dead men that must Covenant to Repent and Believe to justification Renewing Grace must intercede which is not in their hand how then can they promise to do the works of the truly Gracious God may invite and command the dead to live yea and to do the works of the living because he gave them life and gives them means for revival But I know not where he calls such men to promise to do it much less is the constant Baptismal Covenant such Argu. 19. If the Distribution of the Church into visible and invisible be but of the subject by divers Adjuncts and not of a Genus into its Species then that part or those members which are meerly visible are indeed no part or members of the Church so distributed but are only equivocally called a Church Christians Church-Members c. But the Antecedent is true therefore The Antecedent is not only the common Doctrine of the Reformed Divines against the Papists but is expressly affirmed by Mr. Blake in this his Book The consequence is undeniable in that Adjuncts are no part of the Essence much less the Form or the whole Essence and therefore cannot denominate but equivocally instead of the Essence Note that visibile is not the same with visum Argu. 20. If the man without the wedding Garment had coram Deo Right to be there then would not the Lord have challenged him therein with a friend how camest thou in hither not having on a wedding Garment If you will help him that was speechless to an answer and say for him Lord he was compelled to come in al thy command I Reply He that compelled him by invitation did not only bid him come but to come not only to come in but to come in as a Guest should to honor and not disgrace the Feast At lest it should have been known as implyed It was no unrevealed thing Argu. 21. If Circumcision were the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith even a Justifying Faith already in being then so is Baptism but the former is certain Rom. 4.11 12. He received the sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe though they be not circumcised that Righteousness might be imputed to them also The last words confirm the consequence also Argu. 22. Many texts of Scripture shew that it was Justifying Faith that was by God required in the aged in baptism which I will cite together and not stand to fetch an argument from each alone Act. 2.38 39. was before cited verse 41. It was they that gladly received the word that were Baptized Act. 8.37 also is before spoke to It must be believing with all the heart Mar. 16.15 16. is very plain first Christ
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.
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
my wit If it had been said The Covenant commandeth perfection and not sincerity Or The Covenant Accepteth sincerity but not Commandeth it there had been some reason for this charge But do you think that sincerity is no part of Perfection Can the Covenant require perfection and not require sincerity when sincerity is contained in perfection If you take sincerity exclusivè only as excluding perfection and not at all formaliter then it s true that it is not commanded nor is a duty but a failing For I hope the Gospel doth not command Imperfection but tender us a Remedy for it You might with more colour have argued that then Repentance is no Duty because inconsistent with commanded perfection But that will not hold neither For they suppose Repentance commanded by the same Law in case and upon certain supposal of Imperfection or sin §. 90. Mr. Bl. ANd therefore I conclude that as in the Law there was pure Justice as well in the command Given as punishment threatned without any condescension or indulgence So in the Covenant there is mercy and condescension as well in the Condition required as in the Penalty that is annexed to it The Covenant requires no more then it accepts §. 90. R. B. ALL this will be easily granted you by those of the contrary part as nothing to the purpose It follows not that because there is condescension in the Condition that therefore there is such an abatement in the Precept or that the Covenant hath no Precept but de praestanda Conditione 2. It were strange if the Covenant should require more then it accepts Did ever sober man much less such as your Reverend adversaries imagine a thing so Impious as if God would not Accept that which himself commandeth But if you would have said as your arguing requires that the Covenant accepteth no less then the whole which it commandeth or requireth then not only your Antagonists but my self and many another will deny it and demand your proof But here I take this as granted by you that you take not the word Covenant at least so restrainedly as excluding all Precept for I suppose you mean Commanding in the terms requiring and calling for as duty §. 91. Mr. Bl. THe alone Argument so far as ever I could learn that hath brought some of Reverend esteem into this opinion is That if the Covenant requires not exact perfection in the same height as the Law calls for it then a Christian may fall short of the Law in his Obedience and not sin perfection being not called for from him nor any more called for from him then through Grace he doth perform he rises as high as his Rulâ— and sins not through any Imperfection therefore to make it out that a Believers Imperfections are his sins it must needs be that the Covenant requires perfection as to make good that he may be saved in his Imperfections it must be maintained that he accepts sincerity But this Argument is not of weight Christ entring a Gospel-Covenant with man findes him under the command of the Law which command the Law still holds the Gospel being a confirmation not a destruction of it All Imperfection thâ—n is a sin upon that account that it is a Transgression of the Law though being done against heart and labored against it is no breach of Covenant wee are under the Law as men we are taken into Covenant as Christians retaining the humane nature the Law still commands as though the covenant in Christ through the abundant Grace of it upon the terms that it requires and accepts frees us from the sentence of it §. 91. R. B. 1. I Was at first doubtful lest by the Law you had meant as the Lutherans a Law of God in general as opposed to the Gospel as being no Law and that you had meant by the Law only the Moral Precepts which is but the matter of the Law of Nature or of Works or of the Law of Grace in some respect But I perceive that you mean the entire Law both Precept and Sanction by your mentioning the Sentence of it If therefore you do by the Law mean but one Species viz. the Law of Nature acknowledging the new Law of Grace commonly called the New Covenant from the Promise which is the most eminent part to be a Law too then I agree with you in this solution as to the matter of Perfection or else not And yet I dare not hold that the New Law commandeth no more then its Condition But for them that use the word Covenant for nothing but the bare Promise I must tell them that it is but a piece of Gods Law or Instrument separated from the body which they fasten a Name upon and if they will signifie so much that it is but part of the Redeemers Law of Grace which they call a Covenant and will give another name to the whole that so we may understand them I would not willingly quarrel with them about words But if it be the thing as well as the name that they err in affirming that the Gospel is a meer Promise and that God hath no Law but one and that one the Law of Works or else that all his Precepts Natural and Positive are one Law by themselves as distinct from the Sanctions when Precepts are but part of Gods Laws which by their Sanctions are specified and distinguished as most think into two sorts of Nature and of Grace but as Camero thinks into three sorts of Nature of Jewish works of Grace then I not only profess my dissent but do esteem the former error very dangerous and intolerable and the later such as tendeth to great confusion in the body of Theologie 2. This very Argument which you recite and answer doth undenyably prove that the Divines whom you oppose do by the Covenant of Grace understand all the Law that is now in force under the Government of the Redeemer Otherwise they would never imagine that there is no sin but what is against the Covenant of Grace and that there is no other Rule but this Covenant for a Christians obedience It is therefore out of doubt that this difference is but about words or little more they taking that Covenant of Grace in a larger sense then you and I think meet to take it If you should reply that it is an unreasonable thing of them to take it so largely I say that I do not think meet to imitate them in it but I could shew you so much said that way by the forementioned Reverend Learned man your friend and mine as would convince you that they have more to say for what they do then every one that is against them is able to answer §. 92. The Conclusion HAving thus taken the boldness to examine your Exceptions and deliver my Reasons against some of your opinions I do crave your favorable acceptance of what I have done and your friendly interpretation or remission of any
evil without the co-working or instrumentality of faith But these are beside the point 5. When you have laid down one Proposition Man cannot justifie himself by beleeving without God how fairly do you lay down this as the disjunct Proposition and God will not justifie an unbeleeving man Concedo totum Is that your Conclusion Would you have no more Who would have thought but you would rather have said Nor will God justifie man unless his faith be the instrument of it And do you not seem to imply that man with God doth justifie himself when you say Man cannot justifie himself by beleeving without God No nor with him neither For none can forgive sins but God only even to another but who can forgive himself Indeed I have thought what a sad case the Pope is in that is the only man on earth that hath no visible pardoner of his sin he can forgive others but who shall forgive him But I forgot that every beleever forgiveth himself for I did not beleeve it 6. How nakedly is it again affirmed without the least proof that our faith is Gods instrument in justifying Doth God effect our Justification by the instrumentall efficient causation of our faith Let him beleeve it that is so happy as to see it proved and not barely affirmed §. 13. Mr Bl. SO that which is here spoken by way of exception against faith as an instrument holds of efficients and instruments sole and absolute in their work and causality But where there is a concurrence of Agents and one makes use of the act of another to produce the effect that in such causality is wrought it will not hold §. 13. R. B. HE that will or can make him a Religion of words and syllables that either signifie nothing or are never like to be understood by the learner let him make this an Article of his faith 1. What you mean by absolute I cannot certainly ariolate unless that which is never a principall 2. Nor know I whether by sole you mean Materialiter Formaliter vel Respectivè quoad causam principalem 1. Two materials may concurre to make one formal instrument Here the instrument is but one though the matter of it may be of divers parts Sure this is not your sense that faith and something else materially concurre to make one instrument 2. An instrument may be called sole formally when it it is the only instrument and there is no other concurreth to the effect If you mean that my exceptions hold against none but such sole instruments then it is more nakedly then truly asserted nor do they hold ever the more or less whether the instrument be sole or not else they would hold against few instruments in the world For it is not usual to have an effect produced by a sole instrument especially of subordinate instruments though it may be usual as to coordinate 3. An instrument may be called sole Respectivè as to the principal cause viz. It is not the instrument of many principals but of one only Is this your meaning that my exceptions would hold if faith were only mans instrument or only Gods but not when it is both If so 1. This is affirmed without the least shew of proof or reason why my exceptions hold not as much against that instrument of a double principal as of a single surely the nature of an instrument is not varied by that 2. If God and man be both principals as they must be if faith be the instrument of both then either coordinate or subordinate but neither of these as I have argued before Man neither forgives himself under God or with God if you speak of one and the same forgiveness Though I know there is another kinde of forgiveness whereby a man may forgive himself whereof Seneca speaks de Ira when he saith Why should I fear any of my Errors when I can say See thou do so no more I now forgive thee lib. 3. cap. 36. O for one proof among all these affirmations that here is such a concurrence of Agents that God makes use of the act of man to produce the effect of Remission and that as an instrument and not only as a meer condition fine qua non §. 14. Mr Bl. THe Promise or Grant of the New Covenant in the Gospel is instead of faith made the instrument in the work of Justification This is indeed Gods and not mans It is the Covenant of God the promise of God the Gospel of God but of it self unable to raise man up to Justification §. 14. R. B. YOu have been farre from satisfying me in asserting the instrumentality of faith in Justification You here come more short of satisfying me against the sufficiency of the Gospel-grant as Gods instrument You say This indeed is Gods not mans I say There is none but Gods for non datur instrumentum quod non est causae principalis instrumentum You say It is of it self unable to raise man up to Justification I answer 1. It is not of it self able to do all other works antecedent to Justification as to humble to give faith to Regenerate c. But that 's nothing to our business 2. But as to the act of Justification or conveying right to Christ pardon and righteousness I say It is able of it self as the signum voluntatis divinae to do it And you will never be able to make good your accusation of its disability 3. If you should mean that of it self i. e. without the concomitancy of faith as a condition it is not able I answer that 's not fitly called disability Or if you will so call it the reason of that disability is not because there is a necessity of faiths instrumentall coâ—fficiency but of its presence as the performed condition It being the will of the donor that his grant should not efficere actualiter till the condition were performed §. 15. Mr Bl. IT is often tendered and Justification not alwaies wrought and so disabled from the office of an instrument by Keckerman in his Comment on his first Canon concerning an instrument As soon as the instrument serves not the principall agent so soon it loseth the nature of an instrument He instanceth in an horse which obeyeth not the reins of his rider but grows refractory then he ceaseth to be an instrument for travell A sword is not an instrument of slaughter where it slayes not nor an ax an instrument to hâ—w when it cuts not Neither is the Gospel an instrument of Justification where it justifies not §. 15. R. B. J Am too shallow to reach the reason of these words I know you had not leasure to write them in vain and meerly to fill paper And I will not be so uncharitable as to think you willing to intimate to the world that I had wrote or thought that the Gospel was the instrument of justifying a man that was never justified Do you think I know not a Cause and
is to dissolve the obligation to punishment and to constitute the condition of this Right or Pardon For Donaâ—tis est constituere conditionem etiam in ipsa instrumentali Donatione But faith doth not conferre Right for your self say It doth but receive it It doth not dissolve the obligation but accept a Saviour to dissolve it It doth not constitute the condition of right for you acknowledge it is the condition it self To conclude this Point for the compromising or shortening this difference between you and me I will take your fairer offer pag. 75. or else give you as fair an offer of my own Yours is this Faith is considered under a double notion First as an instrument or if that word will not be allowed as the way of our interest in Christ and priviledges by Christ In this general I easily agree with you If that satisfie not I propound this Call you it an instrument of receiving Christ and consequently righteousness and give me leave to call it precisely a condition or a moral disposition of the subject to be justified and I will not contend with you So be it you will 1. not lay too great a stress on your own notion nor make it of flat necessity nor joyn with them that have made the Papists believe that its a great part of the Protestant Religion and consequently that in confuting it they refell the Protestants 2. Nor say any more that it gives efficacy and power to the Gospel to justifie us and is more fitly then the Gospel called an instrument 3. Yea I must desire that you will forbear calling it at all an instrument of Justification and be content to call it an instrument of receiving Justification and I would you would confess that too to be an improper speech If you resolve to go further let me desire you hereafter 1. To remember that its you that have the Affirmative that faith is the instrument of justifying us and I say It is not written you adde to Scripture Therefore shew where it is written expressely or by consequence 2. Do not blame me for making sincere obedience part of the meer condition wherein I think you say as much as I and so as giving too much to man when you give intollerably so much more as to make him the instrumental efficient cause of forgiving and justifying himself 3. Above that I have yet said I pray forget not one thing to prove faith to be the instrumental efficient of sentential Justification which is most properly and fully so called as well as of Legal constitutive Justification For that 's the great point of which you have just nothing pace tui si ita dicam of which you should have said much And so much for the Controversie § 28. Of Evangelical Personal Righteousness Mr Bl. Pag. 110 c. THere is yet a third opinion which I may well doubt whether I understand but so far as I do understand I am as far from assent to it as either of the former and that is of those who do not only assert a personal inherent Righteousness as well as imputed against the Antinomians but also affirm that this Righteousness is compleat and perfect which if it were meant only of the perfection of the subject as opposed to hypocrisie dissimulation or doubleness implying that they do not only pretend for God but are really for him that they do not turn to him feignedly as Israel was sometime charged Jer. 3.10 but with an upright heart Or of the perfection or entireness of the object respecting not one or only some but all Commandments which is called a perfection of parts we might readily assent to it The Covenant cals for such perfection Gen. 17.1 Walk before me and be thou perfect and many have their witness in Scripture that they have attained to it as Noah Gen. 7.9 Job 1.1 Hezekiah Isa 38.3 But a perfection above these is maintained a perfection compleat and full Righteousness signifies as is said a conformity to the Rule and a conformity with a quatâ—nus or an imperfect rectitude is not a true conformity or rectitude at all Imperfect Righteousness is not Righteousness but unrighteousness It is a contradiction in adjectoâ— Though holiness be acknowledged to be imperfect in all respects where perfection is expected in reference to the degree that it should obtain or the degree which it shall obtain or in reference to the excellent object about which it is exercised or in reference to the old Covenant or the directive and in some sense the preceptive part of the new Covenant In all these respects it is imperfect and Righteousness materially considered is holiness and therefore thus imperfect but formally considered it is perfect Righteousness or none this not in relation to the old Rule but the new Covenant Upon this account they are charged with gross ignorance that use and understand the word Righteous and Righteousness as they relate to the old Rule as if the godly were called Righteous besides their imputed Righteousness only because their sanctification and good works have some imperfect agreement with the Law of works This and much more to assert a personal perfect inherent Righteousness as is said all which as it is here held out is new to me and I must confess my self in ignorance all over I never took imperfect Righteousness to imply any such contradiction any more then imperfect holiness §. 28. R. B. THe third opinion you rise against is that which you take to be mine as your citing my words doth manifest but you confess your self uncertain whether you understand it or not There is a possibility then that when you do understand me you may prove your self of the same Opinion In the mean time it is your Reasons which must justifie your strong dissent which I shall be bold to examine Where you say I do not only assert a personal inherent Righteousness as well as imputed against the Antinomians but also affirm that this Righteousness is perfect I Reply Either you suppose the later proposition to be an addition to the former in terms only or in sense also If only in terms the sense being the same I suppose you would not oppose it If in sense then it is either somewhat real or somewhat modal which you suppose the later to adde to the former Real it is not for Res perfectio Rei are not distinguished as Res Res but as Res Modus It is therefore but a modal addition And it is such a Modus as is convertible with Ens. And therefore there is as much imported in the first Proposition We have a personal inherent Righteousness as in the second We have a perfect personal inherent Righteousness For Ens Perfectum are as convertible as Ens Bonum or Ens Verum You adde If it were meant only of the perfection of the subject as opposed to hypocrisie c. or of the perfection or entireness of the object
against me yet I am uncertain because he reciteth no words of mine I have no more to do in this therefore but to clear my own meaning 1. The word Covenant is sometime taken for Gods Law made to his creature containing Precepts Promises and Threatnings Sometime for mans promise to God Violation is taken either rigidly for one that in judgement is esteemed a non performer of the conditions Or laxly foâ— one that in judgement is found a true performer of the conditions but did neglect or refuse the performance for a time Taking the word Covenant in the later sense I have affirmed that man breaks many a Covenant with God yea even the Baptismal vow it self is so broken till men do truly repent and believe But taking the word append Covenant in the former sense and Violation in the stricter sense I say that so none violate the Covenant but finall unbelievers and impenitent that is no other are the proper subjects of its peremptory curse or threatning I think not my self called to give any further answer to that Chapter of Mr. Blakes R. B. Mr. Blake's 32. Chap. I take to be wholly against me and though I know nothing in it that I have not sufficiently answered either in the place of my Book of Baptism whence he fetcheth my words in the Appendix in the Animadversions on Doctor Ward or before to Mr. Tombes yet because I take it to contain doctrine of a very dangerous nature I will more fully Answer it §. 39. Mr Bl. Ch. 32. A Dogmatical faith entitles to Baptism 3. IT further follows by way of Consectary that a Dogmatical faith ordinarily called by the name of faith Historical such that assents to Gospel truths though not affecting the heart to a full choice of Christ and therefore was short of faith which was justifying and saving gives title to Baptism The Covenant is the ground on which Baptism is bottomed otherwise Church-membership would evince no title either in infants or in men of years to Baptism But the Covenant as we have proved is entered with men of faith not saving and therefore to them Baptism is to be administred How the consequent can be denied by those that grant the antecedent Baptism denied in foro Dei to men short of saving faith when they are in Covenant I cannot imagine Yet some that confess their interest in the Covenant deny their title to Baptism and affirm If men be once taught that it is a faith that is short of justifying and saving faith which admitteth men to Baptism it will make foul work in the Church §. 39 R. B. BEfore I give a direct Reply to these words I think it necessary that I I tell you How farre I take Unregenerate men to be in Covenant with God and how farre not and that I also discover as farre as I can Mr. Blake's minde in this Point that it may be known wherein the difference lieth The Covenant is sometime taken for Gods part alone sometime for our part alone sometime for both conjunct even for a mutual Covenanting As it is taken for Gods act it signifieth 1. Either some absolute promise of God made 1. Either to Christ concerning men or on their behalf and so the elect may be said to be in Covenant before they are born because Christ hath a promise that they shall be saved and the non-elect are in Covenant before they are born because Christ hath a promise of some good to them 2. Or to men themselves And that is either 1. Common or 2. Peculiar to some 1. Common as the promise made to fallen mankinde that a Saviour should be sent to Redeem them The promise made to the people of Israel that the Messiah should be of them according to the â—â—esh and personally live among them and preach the Gospel to them The promise made to Noah and the world that the earth should no more be drowned with water The promise of preaching the Gospel to all Nations which is common though not absolutely universal the promise of a Resurrection to all the world and that they shall be judged by Christ the Redeemer and at least those that heard the Gospel on the terms of the new Law and not on the meer rigorous terms of the Law of entire nature the promise of a fuller and clearer promulgation and explication of the Law of grace when Christ should come in the flesh the promise of a fuller measure of the Spirit to be poured out for Miracles to confirm the Christian Doctrine to the beholders hearers and actors that there shall be a Ministry Commissioned to Disciple and Baptize all Nations maintained to the end of the world which gives Ministers right and authority to Baptize them and if there be any other the like promise of the means necessarily anteceding faith Thus farre many thousands that are unregenerate and non-elect may be said to be in Covenant that is under these promises 2. Some of these absolute promises are peculiar to some as to one Sex though common as to that Sex as the mans superiority to one Age to one Degree in order of nativity as to the elder brother to have some superiority over the younger Gen. 4.7 to one Nation as to the Israelites were made many peculiar promises and those before mentioned which I called common as to all Israel were peculiar to them some of them in exclusion of other Nations And some to particular persons good or bad as for success in battell or other enterprises for aversion of some threatned judgement for the abating of some inflicted punishment for some temporal or common blessing of which sort we finde many particular promises which God by some Prophet made with particular men In all these respects I say wicked men have been under a promise yea men not elect to salvation and thus far they may be said to be in Covenant with God But this is but a lax and improper speech to say such are in Covenant to be used now among Christians that have used to give the name Covenant by an excellency to another thing Also now wicked men are not under peculiar personal promises of temporal things as then they were because now there are no extraordinary Prophets or other the like Messengers oâ— Revelations from God to make such particular promises to men Yet I will not say God hath restrained himself from this or cannot or will not do it at all or that no man hath such Revelations but only 1. That it is not usual 2. Nor is God engaged to do it So for the absolute promise of the first special grace first faith and repentance to be given to all the Elect supposing that there is such a promise this is made to none but the ungodly and unregenerate though elect unless you will say it is made to Christ for them or rather is a prediction of good eventually to be conferred on them But though in all these respects wicked men are
nor is God as it were obliged to perform his Covenant to such 13. The like may be said of the foresaid equivocal erroneous Consenting Accepting Covenanting If the errour be through the fault of the man himself his act may oblige himself though God remain disobliged and though he have no right to the thing promised by God Thus much I thought meet to say for the opening of that branch of the Question How far men unregenerate may be in Covenant as to their own act But the great Question is yet behind Whether these men be in Covenant with God as to Gods actual engagement to them so far as that Gods premise is in force for conveying actual right to them as to the promised blessings and so whether it be a mutual Covenant and both parties be actually obliged And thus I say that wicked men are not in Covenant with God that is God is not in Covenant with them Neither have they any right to the main blessings given by the Covenant viz. Christ Pardon Justification Adoption Glory Nor yet to the common blessings of this Covenant for they are given by the same Covenant and on the same conditions as the special blessings So that though they may have right to them at present on the ground of Gods present collation or trusting them with them as a servant hath in his Masters stock yet have they no right by Covenant For it is Godliness that hath the promise of this life and of that to come as being the condition of both and it is seeking first Gods Kingdom and Righteousness that is the condition on which other things shall be added to us The same holds of Church-priviledges and Ordinances quoad possessionens not proper to the faithfull So that in the conclusion I say that though wicked men have many promises from God especially the great conditional promise of Life if they will repent and believe and though they are also obliged by their own imperfect equivocal Covenanting with God yet God remaineth still unobliged to them and they have no actual right to the benefits of his promise because they have not performed the condition of their first right that is have not Covenanted truly with God or entred the Covenant which he propounded having not consented to his terms nor accepted Christ and Life as offered in the Gospel And therefore it is the most proper language to say that none but sincere beleevers are in Covenant with God For the rest have but equivocally Covenanted with God and God not actually engaged in Covenant with them for while the condition is unperformed there is no actual obligation on the promises and so it is no proper mutual Covenant And consequently these men in proper strict sense are no true Christians but analogically only Yet because we have no access to their hearts and therefore must judge of the heart by the profession and outward signes therefore we must judge these probably to Covenant with the heart who do profess to do so with the tongue and those to Covenant entirely and without errour in the essentials who profess so to do and therefore we must judge them probably to be true Christians and truly godly men till they retract that profession by word or deed and therefore we must judge them probably to be truly in Covenant with God and such as God is as it were obliged to justifie and therefore we must give them the name of Christians and men in Covenant with God and therefore we must use them as Christians in works of charity and in Ordinances and Church communion and so must use their children as Christians children The warrant for this usage and Judgement I must desire the Reader to take notice of in what I have written to Mr Tombes Objections on 1 Cor. 7.14 and to Dr. Ward and against Mr. Tombes Precursor more fully For to repeat all here again would be tedious and unnecessary When Christ saith to us If a Brother repent forgive him here by Repenting doth Christ mean plainly Repenting or the profession of it No doubt repenting it self Why but how can we that know not the heart know here when our Brother repenteth Will Mr. Bl. say therefore that none is obliged to forgive Rather we know that man must judge him to repent that professeth so to do and therefore forgive him that professeth it Not because professing was the assigned requisite condition but a sign of that condition and therefore we are to accept of no profession but what probably signifieth true repentance For if we knew a man dissembled or jeered us in professing repentance we are not bound to do by him as a penitent So God commandeth us to love and honour them that fear the Lord that are faithfull that love Christ c. But we know not who these be Are we therefore disobliged from loving and honouring them Or will Mr. Bl. say that we must not honour them lest we mistake and give that honour to one that hath no right to it as he saith about the Sacrament herein joyning with Mr. Tombes Those that profess to fear God and love him we must love and honour as men that do fear and love him yet in different degrees as the signes of their graces are more or less propable In some common professing Christians we see but small probability yet dare we not exclude them from the Church nor the number of true believers as long as there is any probability Others that are more judicious zealous diligent and upright of life we have far stronger probability of and therefore love and honour them much more Mr. Blake therefore in my judgement had done better if with that moderate Reverend Godly man Mr. Stephen Marshall he had distinguished between these two Questions Who are Christians or Church-members and Whom are we to judge such and use as such and to bring in the unregenerate in the later rank only Next we are to see what is Mr. Blakes judgement herein that we may not argue against him before we understand which yet I think I shall in some measure be forced to do or say nothing 1. I finde it very hard to understand what persons they be that he takes to be in Covenant 2. And as hard to understand what Covenant he means For the first I finde it clear that negatively he means They are not truly Regenerate persons but Positively how they must be qualified I finde not so clear Pag. 189. he saith it was with all that bore the name of Israel which is no further true then I have laid down in the former Conclusions so that it may seem that he takes all to be in Covenant that bear the name of Christians What though they know not what Christ or Christianity is Is taking a name entering into Covenant The poor Indians that by thousands are forced by the Spaniards to be baptized are said to know so little what they do that some of them forget the name
with men of saith not saving he doth me wrong For in the properest sense i. e. as if God were actually as it were obliged to such in the Covenant of Grace I never said it But how far such are in Covenant or under promise I have by necessary distinction explained before and I think it beseems not a serious Treatise of the Covenants wherein this Question is so largely of purpose handled to have confounded those several considerations and dispute so seriously before the Reader can tell about what The words which Mr. Bl. questioneth I confess are mine against Dr. Ward and I did not think in so gross an opinion Dr. Ward would have found any second to undertake that cause §. 40. Mr. Bl. 1. ALL that hath been said for the latitude of the Covenant may sitly be applyed in opposition to this Tenent for the like latitude of Baptism §. 40. R. B. THerefore did I say the more of the Covenant before to shew your confusion and mistake in that It is not every Covenant or Promise that Baptism is the Seal of §. 41. Mr. Bl. ALL the Absurdities following the restraint of the Covenant to the Elect to men of faith saving and justifying follow upon this restraint of interest in Baptism §. 41. R. B. WHat Absurdities follow such a restraint of it to sound believers as I have asserted I should be willing to know though with some labor I searched for it Bear with me therefore while I examine what you refer me to It is pag. 209. where you charge those Absurdities And the first is this 1. This restriction of the Covenant to shut out all the non-regenerate makes an utter confusion between the Covenant it self and the conditions of it or if the expression do not please the Covenant it self and the duties required in it between our entrance into Covenant and our observation of it or walking up in faithfulness to it All know that a bargain for a summe of money and the payment of that summe the covenant with a servant for labor and the labor according to this covenant are different things Faithful men that make a bargain keep it enter covenant and stand to it But the making and keeping the entering and observing are not the same and now according to this opinion Regeneration is our entrance into Covenant and Regeneration is our keeping of Covenant before Regeneration we make no Covenant after Regeneration we break no Covenant there is no such thing as Covenant-breaking All this makes an utter confusion in the Covenant Reply 1. I have seldom met with a complaint of confusion more unseasonably where the guilt of it in the plaintiffe is so visible as to marr all the work so much 2. I cannot give my judgment of the intolerableness and great danger of your mistake here manifested without unmannerliness I will therefore say but this It is in a very weightie point neer the foundation wherein to erre cannot be safe In my Aphorisms I gave my reasons pag. 265 for the contrarie It is a truth so far beyond all doubt that our own Covenanting is a principal part of the condition of the Covenant of Grace as that it is in other terms a great part of the substance of the Gospel 1. The conditions are imposed by God and to be performed by us the same act therefore is called our conditions as the performers and Gods conditions as the Imposer and Promiser giving his blessings onely on these imposed conditions Most properly they are called the conditions or Gods Covenant or Promise rather then of ours for our own Promise is the first part of them and our performance of that Promise but a secondary part For 2. Gods Covenant is a free gift of Christ and Life to the world on condition of their Acceptance this our Divines against the Papists on the Doctrine of merit have fully proved Onely this Acceptance must have these necessary modifications which may constitute it sutable to the quality of the object and state of the receiver It must be a Loving Thankfull Acceptance and it being the Acceptance of a Soveraign and Sanctifier it contains a Resolution to obey him Our Acceptance or Consent is our Covenanting and our faith So that our Covenanting with Christ and our faith is the same thing that is our accepting an offered Saviour on his terms Or a Consent that he be ours and we his on his terms And who knows not that this Faith or Covenanting or Consent is the condition by us to be performed that we may have right to Christ and Life offered 3. Indeed there is herewith joyned a promise for future duty but mark 1. what 2. and to what end 1. It is principally but a promise of the same consent to be continued which we already give and secondarily a promise of sincere obedience 2. It is not that these future promised acts shall be the condition of our first Justification or right to Christ but onely the condition of the continuance of our Justification it being certainly begun and we put into a state of favor and acceptance meerly on our first consent or covenanting that is believing or receiving Christ That all this is no strange thing that our own Covenant Act should be also the Primary condition of Gods Covenant may appear by your forementioned similitudes and all other cases wherein such Relations are contracted If a King will offer his Son in marriage to a condemned woman and a beggar on condition that she will but have him that is consent and so covenant and marry him here her covenanting consenting or marrying him is the performance of the condition on her part for obtaining her first Right in him and his but for the continuance of that Right is further requisite Primarily the continuance of that consent secondarily the addition of subjection and marriage-faithfulness Yet though consent begun and consent continued be both called consent and are the same thing it is only the beginning that is called marriage so is it only begun faith which is our marriage with Christ and constitutes us Regenerate or converted And therefore you do not well to talk of Regeneration being the keeping of our Covenant If by Regeneration you mean not Gods Act but our repenting and believing then it is our keeping Gods Covenant by performing the condition i. e. Our obeying him in entering his Covenant but it is not the keeping of our own Covenant for our making or entering Covenant is our principal condition on performance whereof we are justified yet in so doing we promise to continue that consent or faith and so the continuance is our Covenant-keeping As for your instances of the Covenant of paying money and doing work had I used such instances what should I have heard from those men that already charge me with giving too much to works in â—ustification you should have considered that our Covenant 1. is not principally to pay and to labor but to receive 2.
I imagined 2. As the Donor of Christ and Life and the Author of the Promise or Deed of gift and so Christ as Testator he hath made our sincere faith the condition saying If thou believe thou shalt be saved Hereby we are bound to believe as a necessary means to salvation This is but a sanction of the first obligation 3. The like may be said of the threatning He that believeth not shall be damned which God addeth as Legislator to this Law so that every man is bound to sound Believing as the necessarie condition of salvation before he doth consent himself or oblige himself to it even by an obligation which is ten thousand fold stronger then any that he is capable of laying on himself 3. It is also a very high mistake to think that our Covenanting or Consent which is our actual believing is none of our condition when it is the great and principal part of our condition yea all the condition of our begun Justification not taking the word Faith too narrowly You will perhaps say These are our conditions as subjects but not as Covenanters Reply They are our conditions as subjects called to Covenant as we are the persons to whom the Covenant is offered They are constituted by God as Donor Benefactor and Author of the Covenant or Promise and not meerly as Rector It belongeth to the Donor to determine of the conditions of his own gift on which they shall become due or not Yet doth God make no transactions with men but as with subjects and therefore even when he deals with us as Benefactor and Donor in free gifts it is still as Dominus Rector Benefaciens he lays not by his Dominion or Soveraigntie nor these Relations to us 4. For your instance of servants and souldiers they leave out the great part of the condition of the Covenant of Grace which is that we consent to be servants and souldiers The Relation must first be entered God must be taken for our God and Christ for our Redeemer Lord and Saviour the Holy Ghost for our Guide and Sanctifyer This is Faith and Covenanting This goes before working and fighting But this Covenanting is the great condition of Gods Covenant As when the forementioned Prince is offered in marriage with his Dignities and Riches to a condemned beggar as it is a gift and covenant propounded on his part and actually to be entered it is consent or marriage-covenanting on her part that is the condition yea and all the condition of her first right to him and his riches and honors So in your instance It is the servants consent or covenant to have such a man for his master and the souldiers consent and covenanting to have such a man for his General that is the condition on which one hath all his first right to the Priviledges of the family and the other to the Priviledges of the Armie Is not this consent necessarie in our present case If you would have spoke to the point you should have said thus No servant is tyed sincerely to consent or covenant to be a servant before he have received his earnest No souldier is tyed to consent or covenant truly to be a souldier till he be listed which are both plainly false Baptism is as the listing Consent which is saving Faith is the heart covenant prerequisite to listing and not the work to be done after except you speak of the continuance of consent Baptism is the solemnizing our marriage with Christ And it is a strange marriage wherein the woman doth only promise that she will begin hereafter to take that man for her husband but not at present Nay where such present consent is not Requisite is a feâ—gned or nominal or half-consent the condition on which a woman hath Right to the man and his estate and a full consent hereafter the thing that she is engaged to 5. In your minor But faith that is Justifying to accept Christ is the condition to which Baptism engageth either you mean only the continuance of that faith and that is true but not your meaning I think Or you mean the beginning of that faith as doubtless the foregoing words shew that you do and then why had we not one word tending to the proof which would in this place have been very acceptable to me I will anon make an argument of the contrarie You seem to me in all this to mistake the very formal nature of a condition as if it received its denomination from our promise to perform it when as by the consent of all Lawyers that I have read of it it is denominated from the determination of the Donor Testator or other Imposer and most evidently and unquestionably it is so in unequal contracts where one is the Benefactor and hath the absolute power of disposing his own favors §. 44. Mr. Bl. THat Faith upon which Simon Magus in the Primitive times was baptized is that which admitteth to Baptism Simon himself believed and was Baptized Act. 8.13 But Simons Faith â—ell short of saving and justifying §. 44. R. B COncedo totum sed desideratur Conclusio That may be said to admit to Baptism which so qualifieth the person as that we are bound to Baptize him as being one that seemeth sound in believing as Simon did But this is not Entituling or having Coram Deo à faedere Right to Baptism nor doth prove that it is not saving Faith which God in his Covenant makes the condition prerequisite to such a Right to Baptism §. 45. Mr. Bl. 6. IN Case only justifying Faith give admission to Baptism then none is able to baptize seeing this by none is discerned and to leave it to our charity affirming that we may admit upon presumption of a title when God denies I have spoken somewhat Chap. and I refer to Mr. Hudson in his Vindication whom learned Mr. Baxter so highly commends to shew the unreasonabless of it §. 45. R.B. 1. SEing you have read what I have said to Mr. Tombes against this Objection I shall take it as needless to say more till you confute it 2. I say not that onely justifying Faith gives Admission to Baptism I say that the seeming or Probable Profession of such a faith gives Admittance 3. Nor is it left to our Charity but imposed on us as a Duty to Baptize those that profess sound belief but whether the profession be probably serious or not our understanding and not our Charity must judge And if you go not that way too then it seems you would Baptize a man that should apparently jest or deride Christ under colour of professing which were to Accept that as a profession which is no profession For it is no further a profession then it seems to be serious and express what is in the heart 4. Though God deny the justness of the hypocrites Title in foro Dei yet he doth not deny it to be our duty to deal with them for their profession as
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
tuum est id est fidem in eum subjectionem percipies ejus artem eris perfectum Dei opus si autem non credideris ei fugeris manus ejus erit Causa in te c. Ille enim misit qui vocarent ad Nuptias qui autem non obedierunt ei semetipsos privarunt regiâ caenâ 3. Athenagoras in Legat. pro Christianis p. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nullus enim Christianus 〈◊〉 est nisi â—anc professionem simulaverit He therefore that only professeth is but a counterfeit Christian and he that professeth any thing lower then Holyness or an obediential Faith doth profess somewhat short of Christianity and not Christianity it self 4. Tertullian Apolog. cap. 44. Speaking how the Heathens were fain to punish one another in Prisons and houses of Corrections addes Nemo illic Christianus nisi plane tantum Christianus aut si aliud jam non Christianus No Christian comes there unless meerly because he is a Christian or if otherwise i. e. as a wicked liver then he is no Christian And de Baptismo he saith cap. 6. Ita angelus baptismi arbiter superventuro spiritui sancto vias dirigit ablutione delictorum quam fides impetrat obsignata in Patre Filio spiritu sancto Many places might be cited in him that shew they took the Baptized for justified Believers 5. Cyprian Epist 23. Nam cum Dominus dixerit in nomine Patris Filii Spiritus sancti gentes tingi in Baptismo praeterita peccata dimitti c. And Epist 2. § 2. Sed postquam unde genitalis auxilio superioris aevi labe detersa in expiatum pectus ac purum desuper se lumen infudit postquam caelitus spiritu hausto in novum me hominem Nativitas Secunda reparavit c. But it is so well known a Case that Antiquity runs wholly this way that I think I may spare the labor of transcribing any more I had at hand the full testimonies of Clemens Alexand. Origen Epiphanius Athanasius Lactantius Nazianzen Nyssen Basil Cyril of Alexandria Cyril of Jerusalem Synesius Hierom Macarius Eusebius with divers others which I now cast by as tedious and unnecessary but shall produce quickly if I once finde it of any use Yet two or three brief ones I will add which shew that it is the Covenanting or Professing of true Obedience and consequently of a lively working Faith that is required and not the profession of an unsound faith only 6. Nazianzen Orat. 40. p. 641. vol. 1. Edit Morel saith For to summe up all in a word we ought to judge that the force and faculty of Baptism is nothing else but a Covenant entered with God for or a Promise made to God of a Second Life or a new Life and a more pure course of living And therefore that we shall all exceedingly fear and with all diligence keep our Souls lest we be found to have violated this Covenant And doubtless to enter such a Covenant sincerely is the work of a Faith not short of justifying and therefore it is justifying Faith which in Baptism is professed and thereto required 7. Basil Amph. c. 9. As we believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost so are we Baptized into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost And Confession as Captain leads the way to salvation and Baptism sealing up our Promise or Covenant followeth It is then a Seal of our Promise as well as of Gods 8. Chrysostom Tom. 5. Homâ—l ad Neoph. Would we did answerably go on and those Symbols and Covenants wherewith we are bound did stick in our hearts we have confessed Christs Government we have renounced the Devils Tyrannie This Hand-writing this Covenant this Symbol we are taught is conscribed See that we be not again found Debtors to this hand-writing 9. Hierom Dial advers Lucif saith again and again that Baptisma non est nullum est sine spiritu sancto which saying though I approve not yet that and many more passages in that Dialogue fully shew his judgement in this point 10. Salvian de Gubern l. 4. initio saith Nam cum hoc sit hominis Christiani fides fideliter Christi mandata servare fit absque dubio ut nec fidem habeat qui infidelis est nec Christum credat qui Christi mandata conculcat Ac per hoc totum in id revolvitur ut qui Christiani nominis opus non agit Christianus non esse videatur Nomen enim sine actu atque officio suo nihil est Et lib. 3. p. 66. Quid est igitur Credulitas vel fides opinor fideliter hominem Christo credere id est fidelem Deo esse hoc est fideliter Dei mandata servare pag. 67. Infidelis sit necesse est qui fidei commissa non servat Argu. 3. If it be required in Baptism that men do sincerely promise for the future to Believe savingly and to obey Christ sincerely then Iustifying Faith is required in Baptism But the Antecedent is acknowledged by Mr. Bl. except the word sincerely He yieldeth that men must in Baptism engage to do this hereafter Now I would know of him whether God require them to make this engagement seriously sincerely firmato animo or not If not then God calls them but to Dissemble which is not true If yea then I say This is justifying Faith it self or at least comes from it if it be a Promise to do this presently without delay For he that will heartily engage himself to obey Christ as his Soveraign and rest on him for salvation must needs be resolved so to do But he that is so resolved is a true Believer For his will is sanctified or else he could not be thus resolved But if it be only for so long time hence that a man promiseth to believe and obey sincerely with a reserve and resolution to live wickedly till then I hope few will believe that this is the condition of Baptism or the true Baptismal Covenant Argu. 4. They that are to Renounce the World Flesh and Devil are to be true believers to justification but they that are to be baptized are then to Renounce the World Flesh and Devil therefore c. The major is evident in that renounceing these is a renounceing them as Rulers that would command us before God or as worldly fleshly pleasures or profits might seem our chief good to be preferred before God Now it is none but the sincere believer that can so renounce these All others are servants to them and make them their end The Minor is proved thus 1. There can be no motus to the Terminus ad quem but there must also be a Terminus à quo The World Flesh and Devil are the Terminus à quo without which we cannot be said to take God for our God or Christ for our Lord-Redeemer 2. De facto this Abrenunciation hath been used in the Churches Baptism ever since the Apostles days as
is as it were engaged to man in the Covenant of Grace and that it is dangerous to make God to be in actual Covenant with men in the state of nature though the conditional covenant may be made to them and though he have revealed his decree for the sanctifying his elect but he is supposed to dispence his mercies to the unregenerate freely as Dominus absolutus or as Rector supra leges and not by giving them a Legal or Covenant-right And indeed in my opinion the Transition is very easie from Mr. Blakes opinion to Arminianism if not unavoidable save by a retreat or by not seeing the connexion of the Consequents to the Antecedent For grant once that common Faith doth coram Deo give right to baptism and it is very easie to prove that it gives right to the end of baptism God having not instituted it to be an emptie sign to those that have true Right to it And it will be no hard matter to prove that it is some special Grace that is the end of Baptism at lest Remission of sin And so upon the good use of common Grace God should be in Covenant obliged to give them special Grace which is taken for Pelagianism §. 53. WHen I had Replyed thus far to Mr. Blake I was much moved in my minde to have Replyed to his answer to Mr. Firmin on the like subject and also to have then proved that the children have no Right to baptism except the immediate Parent be a believer for the sake of any of his Ancestors and that the children of Apostates and wilfull obstinate wicked livers should not be baptized as theirs and to have answered what Mr. Bl. hath said to the contrary and this meerly in love to the Truth lest the reputation of man should cloud it and in love to the Church and the lustre of the Christian name lest this fearful gap should let in that pollution that may make Christianitie seem no better then the other Religions of the world For I fear this loose Doctrine of Baptism will do more 〈◊〉 the pollution of the Church then others loose Doctrine of the Lords Supper or as much But I am very loth to go any further in Controversie then I shall be necessitated And if Mr. Firmin be living I conjecture by his writings that he is able easily to vindicate his own words Not that I have low thoughts of the abilities and worth of my dear and Reverend friend Mr. Blake but that I take his answers on those subjects to be very dilute si pace tanti viri ita dicam so great a disadvantage is an ill cause to the most learned man Mr. Firmin I know not any further then by his Book against Separation But in that Book I see so much Candor Ingenuitie Moderation Love to Peace and some convenient terms for Peace discovered that I am heartily sorrie that there are no more to second him and that his incitements to accommodation are no more laid to heart But the Peace-makers shall be blessed in the Kingdom of Peace how little soever they may succeed in this tumultuous world For as where envy and strife is contentious zeal there is confusion and every evil work so the fruit of Righteousness is sown in Peace of them that make Peace § 54. I Had thought also at the first view that it would have been necessary to have confuted Mr. Blakes 31. Chapt. when I found this Title A man in Covenant with God and received into the Vniversal Church Visible needs no more to give him accesss to and interest in particular Visible Churches But I know not whether he mean the access and interest of a stranger in passage or a Transient Member or of a fixed Member If of the latter I should have proved moreover that there is Necessary both his Cohabitation and his Consent to be a Member of that Church and his consent to submit to the particular Pastors of that Church as his Teachers and Spiritual Guides in the Lord. But I finde in the following pages Mr. Blake doth acknowledge all this himself I shall therefore pass on to some other subject only remembering Mr. Bl. that as it is not Number of Arguments but Weight that will carrie the Cause so it is not Number that I trust to and therefore if any one of those 26 Arguments foregoing be good though 25 be bad I must needs think the Cause bad which I argue against §. 55. Whether Faith and Repentance be Gods Works Mr Bl. CHap. 15. So Mr. Baxters Questionist qu. How do you make Faith and Repentance to be Conditions of the Covenant on our part seeing the bestowing of them is part of the condition on Gods part Can they be our Conditions and Gods too Answer c. And I shall not stand to distinguish of an Absolute and Conditional Covenant and so making the whole in the Absolute Covenant to be Gods and in the Conditional this part to be ours which I know not whether exactly understood the Scripture will bear but in plain term◠deny that they are Gods Conditions and affirm them to be ours I know what God speaks in his Word concerning these works that He will write his Law in our hearts and put it into our inward parts that he will take away the heart of stone and give an heart of flesh which implyes this work of which we speak I know likewise what in particular is affirmed of Christ that he is the Author and Finisher of our Faith c. Yet all this rises not up higher to make them formally Gods acts and not ours Whose acts they be his Conditions they are this is evident But they are our acts we Believe and Repent it is not God that Believes it is not God that Repents c. Faith and Repentance are mans works not Gods works which man in Covenant does respective to salvation in the Covenant tendered But the Apostle some may say in the next words tells us That it is God that works the Will and the Deed. There he seems to take them from us and ascribes the formality of them to God In this Cooperation of Gods whether they be formally our works or Gods let Isaiah determine Isa 26.12 Thou hast wrought all our works in us When God hath wrought it the work is ours we have the reward c. § 55 R. B. MR Blakes business here is to confute the answer that I gave to that objection A brief Reply may easily satisfie this confutation 1. I did explain in what sense these were called Covenants shewing that that which is called the Absolute Covenant is in some respect no part of Gods Legislative Will and so doth not jus conferre but only part of his Decretive Will revealed but that in other respects it belongs to the Legislative Will and may be called an absolute promise And so the word Conditions applyed to God is taken for the thing promised improperly called a condition but applied