pag. 51. Vulgar Divines as that they can thence conclude and publish me a slighter and contemner of my Brethren As if they that know England could be ignorant that the Churches among us have many such guides as may well be called Vulgar Divines Take them by number and judge in those Counties that I am acquainted in whether the greater number be of the Profound or Subtill or Angelical or Seraphical or Irrefragable sort of Doctors or equal to some of these Reverend Excepters whose worth I confess so far beyond my measure that had I spoke of them as Vulgar Divines they might well have been offended But O that it were not true that there are such through most of England Wales and Ireland if any on condition I were bound to Recant at every Market Cross in England with a fagot on my back so be it there were the same number of such choice men as some of these my offended Brethren are in their stead And then who knows not that the Vulgar or ordinary weaker Teachers do take up that opinion which is most in credit and which is delivered by the most Learned Doctors whom they most reverence So that the summe of my speech can be no worse then this It is the most common opinion which is all one as to say It is the opinion of the Vulgar Divines and some of the Learned the other part of the Learned going the other way which is it that men censure for such an approbrious injurious speech Yet I will not wholly excuse it nor this that Mr Bl. toucheth upon I confess it was spoken too carelesly unmannerly harshly and I should better have considered how it might be taken As for Mr Blake's profession That he hath little of their Learning but is wholly theirs in this ignorance I did still think otherwise of him and durst not so have described him but yet my acquaintance with him is not so great as that I should pretend to know him better then he knows himself and I dare not judge but that he speaks as he thinks Let me be bold to shew him part of that which he saith he is wholly ignorant of That our personal inherent Righteousness is not denominated from the old Law or Covenant as if we were called Righteous besides our imputed Righteousness only because our sanctification and good works have some imperfect agreement to the Law of Works I prove thus 1. If no man be called Righteous by the Law of Works but he that perfectly obeyeth so as never to sin then no imperfect obeyer is called Righteous nisi aequivocè by that Law But the Antecedent is true Therefore so is the consequent 2. If the Law of Works do curse and condemn all men then it doth not judge them Righteous nisi aequivocè But it doth curse and condemn all men Therefore c. 3. If the Law of Works do judge us Righteous for our works taking righteous properly and not equivocally then we must be justified by our works according to that Law Lex n. est norma judicii omnis verè justus est justificandus Justificatio Legis est virtualiter justificatio judicis He that condemneth the Just is an abomination to God But we must not by the Law of Works be justified by our works Therefore c. 4. He that is guilty of the breach of all Gods Laws is not denominated Righteous nisi aequivocè by that Law But we break all Gods Laws Therefore Yea he that offendeth in one is guilty of all Reade Brochmond in Jac. 2.10 and Jacob. Laurentius and Paulus Burgensis in Lyra on the same Text. Vid. Placaeum in Thesib Salmuriens Vol. 1. pag. 29. § 13 c. Wotton de Reconcil Part. 2. l. 1. c. 5. n. 16. Twiss Vindic. Grat. li. 2. part 1. c. 15. pag. vol. minore 214. col 2. See whether yours or mine be the Protestants doctrine Here if ever its true that Bonum est ex causis integris 5. If imperfect works are all sinnes or sinfull then they are not our Righteousness according to the Law of works For it justifieth no man for his sins But the former is true Therefore the later I doubt not but you know the state of the Controversie on this point between us and the Papists 6. If the Law of works do denominate a man righteous for imperfect works which truly and properly are but a less degree of unrighteousness then it seems that all wicked men if not the damned are legally righteous For they committed not every act of sin that was forbidden them and therefore are not unrighteous in the utmost possible degree And the Law of works doth not call one degree of obedience Righteousness more then another except it be perfect But certainly all the wicked are not Legally Righteous nisi aequivocè Therefore c. 7. If our Faith Repentance and sincere Obedience may be must be and is called our Righteousness as it is the performance of the conditions of the new Covenant or Law of Grace then at least not only as they have an imperfect agreement with the Law of Works But the antecedent is true Therefore the consequent Let us next peruse Mr. Blake's Reasons why He is wholly theirs in this ignorance He saith I know no other Rule but the old Rule the Rule of the morall Law that is with me a Rule a perfect Rule and the only Rule Rep. Sed distinguendum est The morall Law is taken either for the entire Law of works consisting of Precept and Sanction and that either as it is the meer Law of nature or as containing also what to Adam was superadded or else it is taken only for the meer preceptive part of a Law which is not the whole Law In the later sense it is taken 1. For the preceptive part of the Law given to Adam 2. For the preceptive part of the Law of nature redelivered by Moses 3. For the preceptive part of the Law of nature now used by Christ the Mediator as part of his own Law 2. We must distinguish of a Rule 1. There is the Rule of obedience or what shall be due from us This is the precept under which I comprehend the prohibition it being but praeceptuâ—â— non agendis 2. There is the Rule of reward determining what shall be due to us This is the conditional promise or gift so far forth as it determineth de ipso praemio 3. There is the Rule of punishment determining what shall be due to man upon his sin This is the threatning 4. There is the Rule of the condition of the reward or punishment and of judging to whom they do belong determining on what conditions or terms on their parts men shall be saved or else damned though the same acts were before commanded in the precept as they are duties yet to constitute them conditions of the promise is a further thing This is the promise and threatning as they are conditional or as they constitute
the conditions of the Law of grace and therefore hath no right to Christ and Life or say simply that we have no right to Remission and Salvation if we can deny the charge and produce our performance of the said conditions we are then non-condemnandi and the Law of grace which giveth Christ and Life on those conditions will justifie us against that charge of having no right to Christ and Life But I think so will not the Moral Law The Law of works justifieth no man but Christ therefore it is not the Law of works by which we are to be justified in judgement But some Law we must be justified by for the Law is the Rule of judgement and the word that Christ hath spoken shall judge us therefore it must be by the perfect Law of Grace and Liberty If it be then said against us that we are sinners against the Law of nature we shall all have an answer ready Christ hath made sufficient satisfaction But if it be said that we have no right to the pardon and righteousness which is given out by vertue of that satisfaction then it is the Law of Grace and not the Moral Law that must justifie us Even that Law which saith Whosoever beleeveth shall not perish c. Moreover doth not the Apostle say plainly that Christ is the Mediator of a better Covenant established on better promises and if that first Covenant had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second but finding fault with them he saith Behold the daies come saith the Lord that I will make a new Covenant c. Heb. 8.6 7 8. which speaks not only of Ceremonial precepts but principally of the promisory part If you should say This is the Covenant and not the law I Reply 1. Then the law is not the only Rule 2. It s the same thing in several respects that we call a Law a Covenant except you mean it of our Covenant act to God of which we speak not Who knows not that praemiare punire are acts of a Law and that an act of oblivion or general pardon on certain terms is a Law and that the promise is the principal part of the Law of grace So that I have now given you some of my Reasons why I presumed to call that Ignorance which I did not then know that you would so Wholly own §. 34. Mr Bl. THe perfection of this holiness and righteousness in mans integrity stood in the perfect conformity to this Law and the reparation of this in our regenerate estate in which the Apostle placeth the Image of God must have reference as to God for a pattern so to his Law as a Rule §. 34. R.B. 1. IT was the very transcendentall perfection which is convertible with its being as to Righteousness which then stood in a perfect conformity to the Law Adam after his first sin was not only less righteous but reus mortis condemnandus and not righteous in sensu forensi according to that Law For I hope you observe that we speak not of that called Moral Righteousness consisting in a habit of giving every man his own but of Justitia forensis 2. There is a partial reparation of our holiness in regeneration but no reparation of our personal inherent legal Righteousness at all Is Righteousness by the Law of works I take this for dangerous doctrine §. 35. Mr. Bl. AS an Image carrying an imperfect resemblance of its Samplar is an Image so conformity imperfectly answering the Rule is conformity likewise §. 35. R.B. 1. EIther that Image is like the Samplar as you call it in some parts and unlike in others or else it is like in no part but near to like If the later then it is but near to a true Image of that thing and not one indeed If the former then it is nothing to our case 1. Because it is Justitia universalis and not particularis that according to the Law of works must denominate the person righteous and not-condemnable 2. Because indeed no one word action or thought of ours is truly conform to the Law of works 2. Similitude as Schibler tels you truly doth lie in puncto as it were and ex parte sui admits not of magis or minus and therefore strictè philosophice loquendo saith he that only is simile which is perfectly so but vulgariter loquendo that is called simile which properly is but minus dissimile Scripture speaks vulgariter often and not strictè and philosophicè as speaking to vulgar wits to whom it must speak as they can understand And so that may be called the Image or likeness of God which participated of so much of his excellency as that it demonstrateth it to others as the effect doth its cause and so is less unlike God I dare not once imagine that a Saint in heaven is like God in a strict and proper sense 3. If all this were otherwise it is little to your purpose For in this conformity of ours there is something of Quantitative resemblance as well as Qualitative and so it hath a kinde of parity and equality in it as well as similitude to the Rule And I hope you will yield it past doubt that parity admits not of magis minus what ever similitude doth §. 36. Mr Bl. SIncerity is said to be the new Rule or the Rule of the new Covenant But this is no rule but our duty taking the abstract for the concrete sincerity for the sincere walking and this according to the rule of the Law not to reach it but in all parts to aim at and have respect to it Then shall I not be ashamed when I have respect to all thy Commandments Psal 119.6 And this is our inherent righteousness which in reference to its rule labours under many imperfections §. 36. R. B. WHen I first reade these words which you write in a different character and father on me I was ashamed of my non-sense for they are no better but it came not into my thoughts once to suspect a forgery in your charge Far was I from imagining that so Reverend Pious and Dear a Friend would tell the world in Print that I said that which never came into my thoughts and confute that soberly and deliberately as mine which I never wrote and which any man that would reade my Book might finde is wrongfully charged on me And truly I dare not yet say that you are guilty of this For though I have read my Book over and over of purpose in those parts that treat of this subject and can finde no such word as you here charge me with yet before I will lay such a thing to your charge I will suspect that it may possibly be in some odd corner where I overlookt it or cannot finde it But I see if I am not overseen how unsafe it is to report mens words themselves much more their opinions from the reports of another how Grave
THE CONTENTS THe Prologue to Mr. Blake pag. 1 Certain Distinctions and Propositions explaining my sense How Christ as King is the Object of Justifying Faith § 1. pag. 3 Ten Arguments proving that Christ as King and Head is the object of the Justifying Act of Faith § 1. pag. 3 4 The common Distinction between Fides Quae and Fides Quâ Justificat examined § 1. pag. 7 The danger of the contrary Doctrine § 1. pag. 8 The former Doctrine defended against Mr. Blakes Exceptions § 1. pag. 9 The same defended against more of his Exceptions and the faith Heb. 11 explained § 2. pag. 10 James 2. about Justification by works explained and vindicated § 3. pag. 12 How far works Justifie § 3 4. pag. 14 15 Why I wrote against the Instrumentality of Faith in Justifying § 5. ibid Ethical Active improper Receiving distinguished from Physical Passive proper Receiving § 5. pag. 17 How Christ dwels in us by Faith § 5. ibid Mr. Bl's Exceptions against my opposition of Faiths Instrumentality in Receiving Christ considered § 6. pag. 18 Mr. Bl's dangerous Doctrine That God is not the sole efficient nor any Act of God the sole Instrument of Justification § 7 8. pag. 19 Mr. Bl's contradiction that faith is the Instrument of man and yet man doth not Justifie himself § 9. pag. 20 Whether Faith be both Gods Instrument and mans in Justification § 10. pag. 21 Further how Christ is said to Dwell in us by Faith § 10. pag. 22 The common opinion of Faiths Instrumentality opened and the Truth further explained § 11. pag. 23 More of Mr Bl's reasoning on this confuted § 12. pag. 27 Whether God make use of our Faith as his Instrument to Justifie us § 13 pag. 28 Whether the Covenant of God be his Instrument of Justification § 14. pag. 28 Mr. Bl's arguing against the Instrumentality of the Promise confuted § 15 16. pag. 29 Mr. Bl's dangerous Doctrine confuted that the Efficacy that is in the Gospel to Justification it receives by their Faith to whom it is tendred § 17 18. pag. 30 Whether Mr. Bl say truly that the word hath much less an Influx to the producing of the Effect by a proper Causality then faith § 19. pag. 31 In what way of Causality the word worketh § 20. pag. 32 Whether the word be a Passive Instrument § 21 pag. 33 Mr. Bl's strange Doctrine examined that the word is a Passive Instrument of Justification § 22 23. pag. 34 More against Mr. Bl's Doctrine that Faith through the Spirit gives efficacy and power of working to the Gospel in forgiving sins § 24. pag. 35 Fuller proof of the most proper Instrumentality of the Gospel in Justification § 25. pag. 36 Mr. Bl. Contradiction in making Faith and the Gospel two Instruments both making up one compleat Instrument § 25. pag. 37 More against Mr. Bl. strange doctrine that Faith gives efficacy as an Instrument to the word § 25. pag. 37 A Condition what and how differing from meer Duty § 27. pag. 38 The difference between us compromized or narrowed § 27 pag. 40 Of Evangelical personal Righteousness § 28. pag. 41 What Righteousness is § 28. pag. 43 In what sense our personal Righteousness is Imperfect and perfect § 28 pag. 44 Isa 64.6 explained Our Righteousness is as filthy rags § 29. pag. 46 How Holiness is perfect or Imperfect § 30. pag. 47 Whether Holiness or Righteousnes be capable neither of perfection nor Imperfection but in relation to a Rule § 31 32. pag. 48 Concerning my charging learned Divines with Ignorance and other harsh speeches § 33. pag. 49 We are not denominated personally righteous for our conformity to the Law of works only or properly proved § 33. pag. 50 Whether as Mr. Bl. saith the old Rule the Moral Law be a perfect Rule and the only Rule § 33. pag. 51 A Vindication of the Author from the imputation of Arrogance for charging some Divines with Ignorance § 33. pag. 49 Whether Imperfect Conformity to the Law be Righteousness as an Image less like the patern is an Image § 35. pag. 54 How fairly Mr. Bl. chargeth me to say Sincerity is the New Rule § 36 pag. 55 An Answer to Davenants Testimony cited by Mr. Bl. § 37. pag. 56 How far Vnbelief and Impenitency in professed Christians are violations of the New Covenant § 38. pag. 57 How many sorts of Promises or Covenants there are in Scripture mentioned § 39. pag. 58 How far Hypocrites and wicked men are or are not in Covenant with God in several Propositions § 39. pag. 60 An enquiry into Mr. Bl's meaning of Dogmatical faith and being in Covenant § 39. pag. 64 Of the Outward Covenant as they call it and how far the Vnbelievers or Hypocrites may have right to Baptism and other Ordinances § 39. ibid Mr Bl's Absurdities supposed to follow the restraint of the Covenant to the Elect considered § 41. pag. 80 Our own Covenanting is the principal part of the Condition of Gods promise or Covenant of Grace § 41. pag. 81 Whether I make the Seal of Baptism and of the Spirit to be of equal latitude § 42. pag. 84 Mr. Bl's dangerous argument answered The great Condition to which Baptism engageth is not a prerequisite in Baptism But Justifying Faith is such Therefore § 43. ibid More of Mr. Bl's Arguments answered § 44 45. pag. 86 My Arguments Vindicated from Mr. Bl's Exception § 46. to 52. pag. 88 26 Arguments to prove that it is Justifying faith which God requires of them that come to Baptism and that Mr. Bl's doctrine in this is unsound and unsafe § 52. pag. 94 Of Mr. Bl's Controversie with Mr. Firmin § 53. pag. 107 My asserting of the Absolute promise of the first Grace vindicated § 55 pag. 108 Whether our Faith and Repentance be Gods works § 55. pag. 109 What Life was promised to Adam in the first Covenant § 56. pag. 111 Of the Death threatned by the first Covenant § 57. pag. 112 Whether the Death of the body by separation of the soul were determinately threatned § 58. pag. 113 Of the Law as made to Christ § 59. pag. 115 Whether the Sacrament seal the Conditional promise Absolutely or the Conclusion I am Justified and shall be saved Conditionally § 60 61 62 63. pag. 115 The Nature of sealing opened § 64. pag. 118 20 Propositions shewing how God sealeth § 64. pag. 119 That the minor being sealed the Conclusion is not eo nomine sealed as Mr. Bl. affirmeth § 65. pag. 123 How Sacraments seal with particular Application § 67. pag. 125 Mr. Bl's doctrine untrue that If the Conclusion be not sealed then no Proposition is sealed § 68. pag. 126 Whether it be Virtually written in Scripture that Mr. Bl. is Justified § 69. pag. 126 More about Condiâ—ional sealing § 70 71. pag. 128 Whether it is de fide that Mr. Bl. is Justified § 72 73 74. pag. 129 In what sense we deny
respecting not only One or Some but All Commandments which is called a perfection of parts we might readily assent to it To which I Reply 1. Your terms are unâ—outh to me but I will do my best to guess at your meaning A perfection of the subject is perfectio essentialis vel accidentalis The former â—s no more but â—sse subjectum vere propriè The later may be variously taken according to the variety of accidents But certain I am that the subject is imperfect quod ad perfectionem accidentalem And therefore in this large expression you seem to say much more then I. You and I who are the subjects of Righteousness are imperfect though perfectly subjects 2. That which you call here perfectio subjecti is nothing but the truth of the immediate subject as I understand you Justitia est vel causae vel personae vel saltem considerata vel ut causae vel ut personae Causa est subjectum proximum Persons est subjectum primum principale Justitia causae est vel actionum vel habituum aut dispositionum Perfecti sunt habitus dispositiones actiones vel perfectione essentiali Transcendentali ita perfecti sunt quia vere sunt verè sunt tales vel perfectione accidentali ita aliquo modo perfecti alio imperfecti sunt It seems therefore that you here say as much at least as I for the perfection of the matter of our inherent Righteousness if not more for I am sure you speak more unlimitedly 3. I do charitably conjecture that when you speak of a perfection of the object you do not mean as you speak but you mean a perfection of our Acts as they respect the object extensively for whether you include or exclude intension I know not Here must I distinguish between objects of absolute necessity and so of the acts about those objects which a man cannot be justified or saved without and 2. Objects of less necessity and so acts which its possible to be justified and saved without In regard of the former I confess our acts may be said to be Truly acts that are exercised about such objects if you will call that perfection as in a larger sense you may But as to the later I acknowledge no such perfection And therefore for that which you call A perfection of parts I acknowledge that every righteous man hath a perfection of the essential parts that is he wants them not but not of the integral alwaies much less of accidents which are improperly called parts Next you repeat some of my words and then adde All which as it is here held out is new to me and I must confess my self in ignorance all over Reply I cannot help that but I will do towards it what I can that it may be none of my fault and therefore will let you know my meaning And in opening the sense and nature of Perfection I cannot give you more of my minde in a narrow room then Schibler hath laid down in Metaph. l. 1. c. 11. Perfectum est cui ad essentiam nihil deest Scaliger Exercit. 140. p. 470. Omne quod est sibi est bonum totum perfectum It is a Metaphisical Transcendental Perfection that I speak of which hath no contrary in Being which consisteth in the presence of all things necessary to Being and that only of an inferiour derived Being such as the creature is for we meddle not with the infinite Divine Being or perfection Nor do we take it in a comparative sense but in an absolute this being a Righteousness perfect in its kinde though a more perfect kinde accidentally may be found out I take it rather nominaliter then participaliter but still remember that I take it not de perfectione accidentali sed essentiali And therefore I still maintain that in several accidental respects our Righteousness is imperfect Now to know how our Righteousness is essentially perfect let us consider what is essential to it It s form is a Relation of our actions and dispositions immediatly and our selves remotely as compared with the Law or Rule This Law besides the constitution of the reward and punishment considered in themselves of which we now speak not doth 1. Constitute I mean efficiently determine what shall be our duty in general 2. It determineth more specially what part of this duty shall be the condition of our Justification and salvation sine qua non When we come to be judged at Gods barre he that hath performed the condition shall be justified though he have omitted much of the other duty but all that have not performed the condition shall be condemned But remember of what it is that this is the condition viz. of the new Law of grace whose office is to make over to us Free remission of sins and salvation through the satisfaction and merits of Christ and not the condition of that Law which gives the reward directly for the work Take up altogether then and you will see that 1. Righteousness is formally a relation 2. And that not of our Actions or dispositions to the meer precept of the Law determining of duty as such commonly called the moral Law but 1. to the Law as determining of the condition of life or death 2. to the promise and threatning of that Law which are joyned to the condition So that to be righteous signifieth quoad legem novam these two things 1. Non obligatus ad paenam cui debetur praemium 2. Qui conditionem impunitatis praemii praestitit The first question in judgement being An sit obligatus ad paenam vel non an praemium sit debitum therefore the former is our first and principal righteousness and here to be pleaded But before the first question can be determined the second must be raised and resolved Utrum praestitit conditionem And here the second is our Righteousness conditionis praestatio by which we must answer the accusation Conditionem non praestitit That is He lived and died an unbeliever or impenitent So that 3. You see that our first Righteousness Non reatus paenae vel jus ad impunitatem ad praemium as it requireth Christs perfect satisfaction as a medium to it by which all the charge of the Law of works must be answered so it requires our performance of the condition of the Law of grace as another medium by which Christ and his benefits are made ours and by which the false accusation of being unbelievers and impenitent and so to be condemned by the Law of grace it self as having no part in Christ must be answered and we justified against it 4. It is not only the form of our righteousness that is transcendenter perfect but also the matter as such as it is the matter that is the subject actions and dispositions are subjects truly capable of that relation All this is no more but that it is a true Righteousness and not
Sober Pious and Friendly soever If when we are dead men shall reade Mr. Blake's Book that never read mine and there see it written that I said Sincerity is the new Rule or the rule of the new Covenant Can any blame them to believe it and report it of me as from him and say What shall I not beleeve such and such a man that reports it in express words But let this go with this conclusion If indeed I have spoken any such words I retract them as non-sense and when I finde them I shall expunge them If I have not patience is my duty and relief and I have long been learning that we must suffer from Godly and Friends as well as from ungodly and enemies and till I had learned that lesson I never knew what it was to live quietly and contentedly The rest of this Section hath answer enough already No doubt but sincere obedience consisteth in a faithfull endeavour to obey the whole preceptive part of Gods Law both natural and positive But no man can by it be denominated righteous nisi aequivocè but he that perfectly obeyeth in degree §. 37. Mr Bl. A Perfection of sufficiency to attain the end I willingly grant God condescending through rich grace to crown weak obedience in this sense our imperfection hath its perfectness otherwise I must say that our inherent righteousness is an imperfect righteousnesse in an imperfect conformity to the rule of righteousnesse and without this reference to the rule there is neither perfection nor imperfection in any action See D. Davenant disputing against Justification by inherent righteousnesse upon the account of the imperfection of it de instit habit p. 349. and how fully he was perswaded of the imperfection of this righteousnesse appears by sentences prefixt before two Treatises as may be seen in the margent §. 37. R.B. 1. YOur term otherwise is ambiguous If you mean that in some other respects you take righteousness to be imperfect so do I and that a little more then you acknowledge If you mean that in all other respects you take this righteousness to be imperfect why then do you wrong your Reader with equivocation in calling it Righteousness when you know that transcendental perfection is convertible with its Being 2. A natural perfection or imperfection actions are capable of without a relation to the Rule though that be nothing to our business yet you should not conclude so largely 3. Many a School Divine hath Written and Gibieâ—f at large that our actions are specified a fine and denominated Good or Evil and so perfect or imperfect a fine more specially and principally then a Lege But this requires more subtilty and accurateness for the decision then you or I in these loose Disputes do shew our selves guilty of As for what you say from Reverend Davenant I Reply 1. Do you not observe that I affirm that which you call Our righteousness inherent to be imperfect as well as Bishop Davenant and that in more respects then one yet one would think by your words that you had a minde to intimate the contrary 2. Yea I say more that in reference to the Law of works our works are no true righteousness at all And I think he that saith They are no righteousness saith as little for them as he that saith they are an imperfect righteousness Yet if the truth were known I do not think but both Davenant and you and I agree in sense and differ only in manner of speaking My sense is this Our obedience to the Law of God is so imperfect that we are not just but guilty and condemnable in the sense of the Law of works therefore speaking strictly we are not righteous at all in sensu forensi according to this Law but speaking improperly and giving the denomination à materia or ab accidente aliqua non a formâ so we may be said to have an imperfect legal righteousness while equivocally we call him just that is but comparatively less unjust then another For though righteousness in sensu forensi have no degrees yet unrighteousness hath many 3. And I suppose you know that Bishop Davenant doth not only say as much as I concerning the interest of works in Justification but also speaks it in the very same notions as I did If you have not observed it I pray reade him de Just Hab. Act. cap. 30. pag. 384. c. 31. p. 403 404 405. 570 571 572 633. And then I would ask you but this Question If the accusation charge us to have no right in Christ and Life because we died unbelievers and impenitent or rebels against Christ must not we be justified against that accusation by producing our faith repentance and sincere obedience it self and if so then which nothing more certain are not these then so farre our righteousness against that accusation to be pleaded And if it be not a true righteousness and metaphysically perfect and such as will perfectly vindicate us against the accusation of being prevalently and finally unbelievers impenitent or rebels against Christ there is no Justification to be hoped for from the Judge but condemnation to endless misery Moreover the Thesis that Davenant proves in the Chapter which you cite is inhaerentem justitiam non esse causam formalem justificationis nostrae coram Deo And if that be true then it is impossible that it should have the formal reason of righteousness in it For if there be vera forma there must needs be the formatum and he that hath true formall rigteousness must needs be thereby constituted Righteous or justified constitutivè and then he must needs be sentenced Just who is Just But then note that Davenant speaks of that universal righteousness whereby we are justified against the accusation of being sinners condemnable by the Law of works and here Christs satisfaction is our righteousness and not of that particular Righteousness whereby we must be justified against the accusation of finall non-performance of the conditions of the Covenant or Law of grace For there it is the performance of those conditions which must it self be our righteousness and so far justifie us Doctor Twisse against Doctor Jackson pag. 687. saith Yet I willingly grant that every sin is against Gods good will and pleasure as it signifieth his pleasure what shall be our duty to do which is nothing else but his commandment And it is as true that herein are no degrees every sin is equally against the Commandment of God I think I may with much more evidence of truth and necessity say it as I did of Personal Gospel-righteousness then he can do of sinne And so much be spoken of that Controversie §. 38. How farre unbelief and impenitency in professed Christians are Violations of the New Covenant R.B. Mr. Bl. pag. 245. c. 33. doth lay down a Corollary That Impenitence and Unbelief in professed Christians is a breach of Covenant Though I take that to be intended as
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
He is set out a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3.24 not through faith in his command It is the blood of Christ that cleanseth all sin and not the Soveraignty of Christ These confusions of the distinct parts of Christs Mediatorship and the speciall offices of faith may not be suffered Scripture assignes each its particular place and work Soveraignty doth not cleanse us nor doth blood command us Faith in his blood not faith yielding to his Soveraignty doth Justifie us §. 1. R. B. THis is a Point of so great moment in my eyes that I resolve to begin with it I doubt not but the difference between you and me is only about the bare methodizing of our Notions and not de Substantia rei But I doubt lest your doctrine being received by common heads according to the true importance of your expressions may do more against their salvation then is yet well thought on And that not per accidens but from its proper nature supposing the impression of the soul to be but answerable to the objective doctrinal seal I am no friend to the confusion that you here speak against and I am glad to find you so little in love with it as to pass your judgement that it is not to be suffered For now I rest assured that you will not be offended when here or hereafter I shall open your guiltiness of it and that you will not be unwilling of what may tend to your cure These two or three necessary distinctions I must first here premise before I can give a clear answer to your words 1. I distinguish still between constitutive Justification or Remission by the Gospel grant or Covenant called by most Justificatio Juris and Justification per sententiam Judicis 2. I distinguish between constitutive Legal Justification as begun and as continued or consummate 3. Between the Physical operation of Christ and his Benefits on the intellect of the Beleever per modum objecti apprehensi as an intelligible species and the moral conveyance of Right to Christ and his Benefits which is by an act of Law or Covenant-donation 4. Between these two questions What justifieth ex parte Christi and What justifieth or is required to our Justification ex parte peccatoris 5. Between the true efficient causes of our Justification and the meer condition sine qua non cum quâ 6. Between Christs Meriting mans Justification and his actual justifying him by constitution or sentence Hereupon I will lay down what I maintain in these Propositions which some of them shall speak further then the present Point in Question for a preparation to what followeth Prop. 1. Christ did Merit our Justification or a power to justifie not as a King but by satisfying the justice of God in the form of a servant Prop. 2. Christ dotn justifie Constitutivè as King and Lord viz. ut Dominus Redemptor i. e. quoad valorem rei he conferreth it ut Dominus gratis benefaciens but quoad modum conditionalem conferendi ut Rector Benefactor For it is Christs enacting the new Law or Covenant by which he doth legally pardon or confer Remission and constitute us Righteous supposing the condition performed on our part And this is not an act of Christ as a Priest or Satisfier but joyntly ut Benefactor Rector Prop. 3. Christ doth justifie by sentence as he is Judge and King and not as Priest Prop. 4. Sentential Justification is the most full compleat and eminent Justification that in Law being quoad sententiam but virtual Justification though quoad constitutionem debiti relationis it be actual Justification Prop. 5. Faith justifieth not by receiving Christ as an object which is to make a real impression and mutation on the intellect according to the nature of the species I say To justifie is not to make such a real change Though some joy◠with the Papists in this and tell me that as the Divine Attributes make their several moral Impressions on the soul according to their several natures so do the satisfaction and merits of Christ apprehended procure comfort and joy and a justifying sentence to be pronounced in the soul it self and so the apprehension of Christs Soverainty causeth our subjection which last is true Prop. 6 Faith therefore can have no Physical Causation or Efficiency in justifying seeing that the work to be done by us is not nosmetipsos Justificare in whole or in part but only Jus acquirere ad Beneficium gratis sed conditionaliter collatum It is a Relative change that is made by Justification and not a Real or Physical Prop. 7. The Legal formal interest or conducibility of Faith to our Justification cannot therefore be any other then that of a Condition in the proper Law-sense as the word Condition is used viz. that species of conditions which they call Voluntariae vel Potestativae and not Casuales vel Mixtae Prop. 8. Scripture doth not say that I can finde that Faith justifieth but that we are justified by Faith I therefore use the later phrase rather then the former both because it is safest to speak with the Scripture and because the former speech seemeth to import an Efficiency but the later frequently imports no more then a meer condition Yet I will not quarrell with any that speaks otherwise nor refuse to speak in their phrase while I dispute with them as long as I first tell them my meaning Prop. 9. Though ex parte Christi our several changes proceed from his several Benefits and parts of his Office exercised for us yet ex parte nostri i.e. fidei it is one entire apprehension or receiving of Christ as he is offered in the Gospel which is the Condition of our interest in Christ and his several Benefits and the effect is not parcelled or diversified or distinguished from the several distinct respects that faith hath to its object Christ meriteth Remission for us as Satisfier of Justice and he actually justifieth us as Benefactor King and Judge and he teacheth us as Prophet and ruleth us as King The real mutations here on us receive their diversification partly from our faith because there faith doth efficere or causare As we learn of Christ because we Beleeve him or Take him for our Teacher We obey him because we Take him for our King c. But it is not so with the Conveyance of meer Right or Title to Christ and his Benefits Faith doth not obtain Right to Remission and Justification distinctly as it receiveth his Righteousness or himself as Priest and so Right to the Priviledges of Christs Government distinctly as it taketh him as King nor Right to Adoption as it taketh him as a Father nor Right to Glory as it taketh him as Glorifier no more then all inferiour benefits as Title to Magistracy Ministry Health House Lands c. proceed and are diversified by the divers aspects of our faith on Christ The true Reason of which is this
to be acts of Justification which I am forced to interpret justifying acts I expected to finde the true act asserted but in stead of that I finde the opposite member is The blood of Christ Is this indeed the Controversie Whether it be Accepting Christ as Lord or the blood of Christ that justifieth Never was such a Question debated by me in the way here intimated I am wholly for you if this be the doubt It is Christs blood that justifieth meritoriously But yet we are justified by faith too as the condition of our interest in free Justification And why should these two be put in opposition I lookt when you had asserted and well proved that it is not taking Christ as Lord but only faith in his blood that is the condition on our part of our attaining Justification 7. It would prove a hard task to make good that there are several acts of justifying faith by which we are not justified without flying to great impropriety of speech By justifying faith you must mean the Act Habit or renewed Faculty If the act then I think you will say it is but one or not many Or at least every act which is justifying faith must needs be such as we are justified by Or else why should that act be called justifying faith 2. But I doubt not but you mean the habit And then 1. you confess that the habit is justifying faith which is true not only as it helpeth to produce the act but even as it is in it self But that will overthrow the doctrine of instrumentality 2. It requireth another kinde of Disputing then I here meet with to prove that acts and habits of mans soul are of so different a nature that where the acts are specifically distinct by the great distance and variety of objects yet the habit producing all these is one and the same and not distinct as the acts and that obedience self-denial and valour are acts of the same habit of faith as is the accepting an offered Christ 3. If you should mean by justifying faith the faculty as sanctified then all other acts of that faculty as sanctified or of the Spirit there residing might as well be called Acts of justifying faith But I will not imagine that this is your sense 8. 1 Cor. 4.4 is nothing to our business Paul was not his own justifier Though he knew not matter of condemnation sensu Evangelico for no doubt he knew himself to be a sinner yet that did not justifie him because it is God only that is his Judge Can you hence prove that accepting Christ as Lord is not the condition of our Justification Then you may prove the same of the accepting him as Saviour For Paul knew nothing by himself as if he were guilty of not performing the one or the other yet was he not thereby justified §. 3. Mr Bl. â—Ames indeed saith that Abraham was justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son on the Altar Jam. 2.21 but either there we must understand a working faith with Piscator Paraeus Pemble and confess that Paul and James handle two distinct questions The one Whether faith alone Justifies without works which he concludes in the Affirmative The other What faith justifieth Whether a working faith only and not a faith that is dead and idle Or else I know not how to make sense of the Apostle who streight inferres from Abrahams Justification by the offer of his son And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed to him for righteousness How otherwise do these accord He was justified by works and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith he was justified by faith §. 3. R. B. 1. IF James must use the term Works twelve times in thirteen verses a thing not usual as if he had foreseen how men would question his meaning and yet for all that we must beleeve that by Works James doth not mean Works it will prove as hard a thing to understand the Scripture as the Papists would perswade us that it is and that there is as great a necessity of a living deciding Judge 2. Do but reade over all those verses and put working-faith in stead of Works and try wâ—at sense you will make 3. No doubt but Paul and James handle two distinct Questions but not the two that you here express Paul speaks of Meritorious Works which make the Reward of Debt and not of Grace if you will beleeve his own description of them Rom. 4.4 But James speaks of no such Works but of such as have a consistency with Grace and necessary subordination to it I prove it The Works that James speaks of we must endeavour for and perform or perish supposing time But the works that Paul speaks of no man must endeavour or once imagine that he can perform viz. such as make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace Paul speaks indeed of faith collaterally but of Christs Merits and free-Grace directly and purposely So that the chief part of Pauls controversie was Whether we are justified freely through Christs Merits or through our own meritorious Works But James's question is Whether we are justified by faith alone or by faith with obedience accompanying it and both as subordinate to Christs Merits Paul's question is Of the meritorious Cause of our Justification James's question is Of the condition on our parts of our interest in a free Remission supposing Pauls question determined that Christ only is the Meriter Paul speaks of Justification in toto both in the beginning and progress but especially the beginning But James speaks only of Justification as continued and consummate and not as begun For both Abrahams and every mans was begun before Works of Obedience Though a disposition and resolution and engagement to obey do go before 4. If with the named Expositors you understand by Works a working-faith either you grant as much as I affirm in sense or else you must utterly null all the Apostle's arguing from vers 13. to the end For if by Working-faith you suppose that James meant that God did not only make Faith it self to be the pâ—incipall condition but also its Working in obedience when there is opportunity to be the secondary condition or part of the condition of Justification as continued as being the necessary modus or effect both which it is in several respects then you say the same in sense as I do only changing the Scripture terms without and against reason It is ordinary to make the modus or quality of that matter which is the substance of the condition to be as real a part of the condition as the matter it self As when you oblige your Debtor to pay you so much currant English money it is here as necessary that it be English and Currant as that it be money If you promise your servant his wages on condition he serve you faithfully here Faithfulness is as real a part of the Condition as
Service If a man take a woman in Marriage and estate her in all his Lands on condition that she will be to him a chast faithfull Wife here her chast fidelity is as true a part of the condition as to be his Wife So if God say He that hath a Working faith shall be justified and saved and he that hath not shall perish Here as faith is the principall part of the condition so that it be a Working is the secondary and as real a part of the condition as that it be faith And if Satan accuse you for not-beleeving at Judgement you must be justified by producing your faith it self so if he accuse you as having a faith that was not Working how will you be justified but by the Works or Working disposition of that faith 5. As for your single Argument here I answer 1. It is a weak ground to maintain that James twelve times in thirteen verses by Works means not Works and by faith alone which he still opposeth doth not mean faith alone and all this because you cannot see the connexion of one verse to the former or the force of one cited Scripture Others may see it and be able to shew sense in the Apostles words though you or I could not If every time we are at a losse in analysing or discerning the reason of a cited Text we shall presume to make so great an alteration meerly to bring all to hang together in our apprehensions we shall finde Analyzers the greatest corrupters of Scripture It is easie to imagine and fain a false Analysis with much plausibleness I conceive that James citeth these words expositorily q. d. And thus or in this sense the Scripture was fulfilled i e. historically spoke truly of that which was long before done Abraham beleeved God i. e. so as to second his faith with actual obedience and it i. e. beleeving and so obeying or trusting Gods promise and power so farre as to offer his son to death was imputed to him c. 2. Or why may not James by concession preoccupate an objection knowing that this would be objected he might say q. d. I grant that the Scripture was fulfilled which saith c. but yet though he were initially justified by faith only yet when he was called to works he was justified also by his obedience 3. And is it not as hard to discern the reason of this citation according to your exposition as mine For you may as well say How do these accord He was justified by a working faith and The Scripture was fulfilled which saith He was justified by faith For James is not proving that Abraham was justified by faith and yet this is it the Text speaks but that he was justified by works seconding faith or as you say by a Working-faith Where if you put any emphasis on the term Working and account it to superadde any thing to meer beleeving you say as much as I and then James must cite that Text expositorily and then whether according to my exposition or yours varies not the case seeing one saith as much for Works as the other But I suppose you will say Faith which justifieth must be working but it justifieth not qua operans Ans 1. True nor qua fides i. e. quâ apprehendit objectum if the quâ speaks the formall reason of its interest in Justification 2. But why cannot faith justifie unless it be working If you say Because that God hath made it the condition of Justification that we beleeve with a working faith and so that it be working is part of the Condition you say the same in sense as I. If you say either that working is necessary as a sign that faith is true or that the nature of true faith will work both are truth but to say this is the Apostle's sense is to null all his Argumentation For he pleads not for a meer necessity of signification or discovery but for a necessity ut medij ad Justificationem even that Justification which he cals Impuâ—ing of Righteousness and that by God And he argueth not only Physically what the nature of faith will produce but morally what men must do to such ends And it is only as a condition that faith or its working nature can be necessary ad finem ut media moralia if you speak of such an absolute necessity as the Text doth §. 4. Mr Bl. ALL works before or after conversion inherent in us or wrought by us are excluded from Justification §. 4. R. B. 1. THe term Works signifieth either such as a Workman doth to deserve his wages for the value of his Work which make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace and so its true Or it signifieth all good actions and so this saying is contrary to the scope of the Scripture 1. Faith and Repentance are such works and wrought by us 2. James asserteth the inclusion of such works If you say But faith and repentance justifie not as Good works I easily grant it That they be Good floweth from the Precept That they Justifie floweth from the Promise constituting them the Condition If they should justifie because Good their goodness must be such as may accrue to a Meritoriousnessâ— But yet they must be Good before they can justifie as Conditions of the free Gift yea and have a peculiar eminent goodness consisting in their aptitude to this work and to Glorifie the free Justifier Mat. 25. Rom. 2. James 2. with the greatest part of Scripture look not with such a face as your Proposition This may serve to your following words §. 5. Mr Bl. ANd these things considered I am truly sorry that faith should now be denied to have the office or place of an instrument in our Justification nay scarce allowed to be called the instrument of our receiving Christ that justifies us because the act of faith which is that which justifieth us is our actual receiving Christ and therefore cannot be the instrument of receiving This is too subtle a Notion We use to speak otherwise of faith Faith is the eye of the soul whereby we see Christ and the eye is not â—ight Faith is the hand of the soul whereby it receives Christ and the hand is not receiving And Scripture speaks otherwise We receive remission of sins by faith and an inheritance among them that are sanctified is received by faith Act. 18.26 Why else is this righteousness sometime called the righteousness of faith and sometime the righteousness of God which is by faith but that it is a righteousness which faith receives Christ dwels in us by faith Eph. 3.17 By faith we take him in and give him entertainment We receive the promise of the Spirit through faith Gal. 3.14 These Scriptures speak of faith as the souls instrument to receive Christ Jesus to receive the Spirit from Christ Jesus §. 5. R. B. 1. I Know not how to meddle with Controversies but some body will be sorry
Righteousness of faith Sometimes the Righteousness of God which is by faith but that it is a Righteousness which faith receives Ans 1. It s properer to say Credens recipit credendo The Believer by beleeving receives it Then to say Faith especially the act receives it But if you will use that speech it must express but formalem rationem credendi expositorily and not the efficiency of faith and therefore no instrumentality It is the Righteousness of God by faith because God gives it freely Christ having merited it upon condition of mans faith You adde Eph. 3.17 Christ dwels in us by faith By faith we take him in c. Ans You odly change the question We are speaking of faiths instrumentality in receiving Right to Christ or Christ in relation and you go about to prove the reception of his Spirit or graces really or himself objectively For Christ is said to dwell in us 1. By his Spirit and Graces 2. Objectively as my friend dwels in my heart when I love him The text being meant of either of these is nothing to the purpose 2. Yet here you do not prove that by signifieth a proper instrument no more then your actual intellection is said to be the instrument of Truths abode in you when it is said that Truth dwelleth in you by intellection The same Answer serves to your following words about receiving the Spirit 1. It s nothing to our Question 2. You give us but your bare word that Scripture speaks of faith as the souls instrument even in receiving the Spirit of Christ much less in receiving Right to Christ But still remember that from first to last I profess not to contend with any about the use of this phrase of faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ It is its being really the proper instrumentall efficient cause of Justification which I denied and resolvedly more then ever do deny This you next come to and say §. 6. Mr Bl. THe instrumentality of it in the work of Justification is denied because the nature of an Instrument as considered in Physical operations doth not exactly belong to it which if it must be alwaies rigidly followed will often put us to a stand in the assignation of causes of any kinde in Moral actions The material and formal causes in Justification are scarce agreed upon and no marvell then in case men minde to contend about it that some question is raised about the Instrument But in case we shall consider the nature and kinde of this work about which faith is imploied and examine the reason and ground upon the which faith is disabled from the office of an instrument in our Justification and withall look into that which is brought in as an instrument in this work in the stead of it I do not doubt but it will easily appear that those Divines that with a concurrent judgement without almost a dissenting voice have made faith an instrument in this work speak most aptly and most agreeably to the nature of an instrument §. 6. R. B. BUt is this certain Do I therefore deny faith to be the instrument of Justification because the nature of an instrument as considered in Physical operations doth not exactly belong to it I said 1. The action of the principal Cause and of the instrument is one action Is not this true of moral operations as well as Physical If it be not you must make us a new Logick before you can reasonably expect that we receive your Logical Theology 2. I said the instrument must have Influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality that is in suo genere Is not this true of Moral operations as well as Physical It s true Moral causes may be said to have a less proper causation then Physical But 1. The instrumental must be as proper as that of the principal 2. There is a wide difference between causam Moralem and causam Moralitatis Effecti naturalis potest esse causa moralis vel imputativa Et effecti moralis scilicet Ethici ut Debiti Juris Meriti potest esse causa remotior naturalis It may well be called a proper causation when the effect is produced by as full a causation as the nature of the thing will admit as in relations that are by meer resultancy 2. You say the material and formal causes of Justification are scarce agreed on But doth that give you a liberty to assert what you list or what cannot be proved true because all men see not the truth I should have thought you should rather have thus concluded Seeing Divines themselves cannot agree about the assignation of these Logical unscriptural notions in the business of Justification therefore it is a meer Church-dividing course to place so much of the Protestant Cause in such notions and insist upon them as matters of such necessity and weight as is done in asserting faiths instrumentality to Justification Your argument in the issue and tendency is like that of plundering souldiers in time of fight that say Now they are altogether by the ears we may take that we light on why should they question us till they agree among themselves 3. Whether this phrase be so apt as you affirm we shall better know when you have said something to prove it If Divines have been so concurrent in it as you say that there is scarce a dissenting voice I hope I am the more excusable if it prove an error for opposing it For it is pity to let so many mistake themselves mislead others and make us part of a new Religion But Sir what 's the cause of this sudden change Through their great condescension I have received Animadversions from many of the most Learned Judicious Divines that I know in England And of all these there is but one man that doth own the Doctrine of faiths Instrumentality but they disclaim it all some with distast others with a modest excuse of them that use it and the gentle interpretation of a Metaphorical instrument and that remote for so they would have me interpret our Divines I told you this when I saw you and you asked me Whether Mr C. were against it To which I Answer Not so much as divers others that write to me but judge you by his own words which are these Obj. But though faith be not the instrument of our Justification may it not be called the instrument of receiving Christ Ans I think they mean so and no more who call faith the instrument of our Justification c. I shall not be unwilling to yield to you that to speak exactly faith may better be called a Condition then an Instrument of our Justification So far Mr C. §. 7. Mr Bl. THe work about which faith is imploied is not an absolute but a relative work a work of God towards man not without the actual concurrence of man such in which neither God nor man are sole efficients nor any act
But that is no better then a plain impossibility For the communication will make it another action The accident perisheth when separated from its subject and therefore the same accident cannot be communicated But it s like you intended to have said That there is a common or mutual attribution of each others actions or one is entitled to the actions of the other and so mean only a communication of the Name quoad modum producendi and not of the actions themselves But then either this is an improper figurative way of speech or it is proper and grounded in the nature of the thing If the former then it is nothing to our Question who are not enquiring whether there may not be found some Figure in Rhetorick according to which faith may be said to be mans instrument of Justification and Gods but whether it be so properly and indeed And if you could finde any Scripture that so speaks figuratively calling faith mans instrument and Gods in justifying as you cannot this would do nothing to the deciding of our Controversie It is therefore a grounded attribution that you must prove where there is also a real instrumentality and so the Name fitted to the Thing And how prove you this Why as before Eph. 3.17 you say We beleeve and not Christ yet faith is Christs instrument whereby he takes up his abode But this is too facil disputing to satisfie 1. Here is not a word to prove that it is a relative In-dwelling that is here spoken of I need not tell you how singular you are in this Exposition if you so expound If not you say nothing 2. If that had been proved yet here is no proof that by signifieth instrumentality 3. Much less that it is Christs instrument How easily are all these affirmed I think Christ dwels in our hearts as I said 1. By his Spirit and Graces and so he is said to dwell in us by faith 1. Formaliter faith being the principal part of that grace which dwelleth in us 2. Conditionaliter Faith being a condition of our right to the Spirits abode 3. Efficienter as the act of faith doth directly cause the increase and so the abode of the habit and also as it exciteth other graces If you will call this efficiency an instrumental efficiency I think it is no proper speech We do not use to call the act of intellection Mans instrument of knowing or increasing the habits of knowledge but I will not contend with you about this Nor yet if you say This act of beleeving is Mans instrument of exciting and increasing grace in himself directly and Gods instrument remotely As my pen is immediatly my instrument and remotely his that holds my hand Or rather I should say as my action in writing is improperly called my instrument and his And thus man may be said yea more properly then thus to sanctifie himself and God to sanctifie man by himself But in Justification the matter is far otherwise Man doth neither Justifie himself nor God justifies man by himself The second way of Christs dwelling in us is Objectively And here if you will speak so improperly as to say that mans act of believing is his instrument of receiving Christ as an Object or of the Objects abode in the soul I will not conâ—end with you about it Only as I would desire you to make this phrase no great part of Religion nor lay too great a stress upon it so also to remember 1. That it is but the species and not Christ himself that is objectively received and thus dwelleth in us 2. That every other grace that hath Christ for its object is thus far an instrument of receiving him and of his abode in us as well as faith but none so properly and fully as knowledge And 3. That thus Christ dwels objectively in every wicked man that thinketh of him Though doubtlesse not in that deep and speciall manner as in his chosen 3. And yet further as a consequent of the first sort of indwelling Christ himself may be said to dwell in us Câ—viliter vel Moraliter that is Reputativè because his Spirit or Graces dwell in us Naturaliter As a man that keeps possession of a house by his son or servant or by his goods And here also if you have a minde to the term Instrument you may for me say that Christ keeps possession by faith or the Spirit as his instruments But then you must consider 1. That this is by no communication of Actions and Titles but here is a real ground for this speech 2. That it is not faith a mans act but faith as Gods grace wrought and maintained in us by which he may in this sense be said to dwell in us or keep possession of us 3. That thus every grace may as truly be said to be Christs instrument of possession or indwelling as faith so he dwelleth in us by love hope trust desire joy c. but most properly by the Spirit or new Creature or whole body at Sanctification 4 That all this is nothing to prove faith to be mans instrument and Gods yea or either alone to effect our Justification The same answer serves to Act. 15.17 God purifieth mans heart by faith 1. From the power of sin and that is by faith 1. Formaliter 2. Efficienter as is before expressed 2. From the guilt of sin and that is by faith as a condition on mans part and not as an instrument By or through which God is said to purifie or pardon us 1. In that he conferreth remission only on this condition and so doth constitute the formall office of faith in justifying 2. In that by his Spirit he causeth or giveth saith it self and effecteth the matter Though whether this Text reach to Justification I will not Dispute So that you do but nakedly affirm and not prove that faith is Gods instrument or mans in justifying Lastly to what you say from Rom. 8.13 I reply 1. An Adâ—utor or Concause is ill called an instrument Must the Spirit needs be our instrument because it is By the Spirit As if Byj signified only an instrument 2. All this is nothing to the business of Justification Prove but this that man is as true an efficient of his own pardon or Justification as he is of mortifying the deeds of the body or of Progressive Sanctification and you shall carry the Cause I will not then contend whether the term instrument be proper or improper §. 11. Mr Bl. MAn neither justifies nor sanctifies himself yet by faith he is raised to close with God in both And so faith as an instrument receives Righteousness to Justification and therefore is called The righteousness of faith which is our Justification and works Sanctification provided you understand not the first work which is properly Regeneration and precedent to saith but the further progress and increase of it c. §. 11. R. B. 1. IF man justifie not himself and yet faith be his
nothing to the nature of an instrument active or passive whether it be produced by the principal agent or not so it do but subserve that agent 2. If this proposition be true there is never an active instrument in rerum natura For Angels and men calor frigus and all creatures are produced by God as the principal cause to the producing of some effects except there be any ultimi effectus found out which are not causes of other effects and they all receive activity and power from God Those that are most for passive instruments say calor is an active instrument But if I use fire to warm my beer or burn any thing this receives its activity and power from another and therefore must be no active instrument with you If there be no active instrument when I thought there had been no passive instrument I was fâ—r wide 3. But what mean these strange words of Activity and power received if the instrument be not active Is not the Potentia here meant Potentia efficiendi and is not all effection by action And is not the activity here mentioned an activity in causing What and yet no active instrument 1 Be not offended with me Dear brother if I confess that you and I differ in more points than one and in our Philosophy as well as Theology §. 23. Mr Bl. BVt the Word is produced and held forth of God for the work of Justification and hath its power of working elsewhere §. 23. R. B. YEt more strange 1. Is it not enough that you take the Word to be a passive instrument of Confirmation and Conversion and all the work that it doth on the souls of your hearers really 〈◊〉 you must feign the Word to be the passive instrument of Justification too Is there any thing in the whole world that can mâ—râ— unfiâ—ly be called a passive instrument then the Covenant of Justification Why it is Gods only instrument of active Constitution of the dueness of the benefiâ— Though it be but actione morali ut â—ignum â—â—lâ—ntatis donatoris The Debitum results from the Grant Deed of Gift Testament or Instrument of Donation or Conveyance as from its fundamentum proximum And is the fundamentum proximum Relatioâ—is a passive Instrument 2. The Word hath its power of working elsewhere that is from God but not from mans faith Farre be such a thought from my soul 3. I suspect by your words when you say the Word is produced and held sorth of God and by your discourse all along that you all this while understand not what I mean by the Covenants justifying yet I had hoped you had understood the thing it self You seem to think that the Covenant justifies by some real operation on the â—oul as the Papists say and our Divines say It sanctifies or as it justifies in forâ— conscientiae by giving assurance and comfort But Sir I opened my thoughts of this fully in Aphor. pag. 173 174 175 176 177 178 179. I scarce bestowed so many words of any one particular point I speak not of the effect of Gods Word as preached to mens hearts but as it is Lex promulgata Faedus Testamentum and so doth convey Right or Constitute the dueness of the benefit This is the Record that God hath given us eternall Life and this Life is in his Son c. 1 Joh. 5.11 12. This Gospel-donation doth constitute the duness of the thing given to us and thus the Covenant justifies as a written pardon under the Kings hand or an act of grace or oblivion doth pardon Do you not oft read in Divines of Justificatio Juris vel Legis as distinct from Justificatio Judicis vel per sententiam I referre you to what I said in the cited place §. 24. Mr Bl. FOrgiveness of sins is preached in the Gospel Act. 13.32 But it is those that beleeve that are justified Faith through the Spirit gives efficacy and power of working to it §. 24. R. B. I Should tremble to say so What Romanist by the doctrine of merit gives more to man in the work of Justification If our faith give efficacy and power to the Gospel to justifie us then we justifie our selves when the Gospel justifies us then the Gospel is our instrument of Justification And can this be unless it be also said that we made the Gospel Then God and we are concauses in the Gospels act of Donation And is it the same power and efficacy for justifying which the Gospel receives from God and which it receives from faith or are they divers If divers shew us what they are and which part of its power and efficacy the Gospel receives from faith and which from God If they are the same then God must convey justifying efficacy and power into faith first and by faith into the Gospel which who imagineth or why should I be so vain as to stand to confute it O that you had condescended so far to your Readers weakness as to have deigned to shew him Quomodo patitur Evangelium recipiendo Quid recipit ut siat potens efficax quomodo haec potentia efficacia fuit in fide utrum eminenter an formaliter aut utrum fides id communicavit quod nunquam habuit quomodo agit fides in hoc influxu causativo in Evangelium with many more of the like which you make necessary to be enquired after And why gave you no proof from Scripture or reason for a point that is so new that I think never man printed before you for so far as I can learn at present That saith gives efficacy and power of sanctifying or exciting Grace perhaps some before you have delivered but that it gives efficacy and power of justifying I think not any 2. And sure you do not take the foregoing words for proof If you do I desire your Reader may not do so What though only Believers are justified by the Covenant Doth it follow that faith gives efficacy and power to the Covenant to justifie Then either there are no conditions or causes sine quibus non or else they all are efficientâ— and give efficacy and power to other efficients What if your father bequeath by his Testament 110 a piece to each of his sons to one on condition he will ask it of his elder brother and thank him for it to another if he be married by such a time to a third if he will promise not to wast it in prodigality Do any of these conditions give efficacy and power to the Testament No Yet the Testament doth not efficaciter agere till they are performed Why is that Because all such instruments work morally only by expressing ut signa the Will of the Agent and therefore they work both when and how he will and it is his Will that they shall not work till such a time and but on such terms and so he frames the conditions himself as obices to suspend his Testament or
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.