opposeth are but that Divines are of that judgement §. 57. Mr. Bl. ANd what I have said of the Life promised I say of Death threatned c. My Learned friend Mr. Baxter enquiring into this Death that was here threatened saith that the same Damnation that followed the breach of the second Covenant it could not be Aph. p. 15. When I suppose it rather should be said that in substance and kinde it can be no other Infidels that were never under any other Covenant c. §. 57. R. B. 1. WHat also I have answered to the former may suffice to this for the main 2. One would think that you intended directly to contradict me but whether you do so indeed I cannot well tell I know nor what you mean by substance and kinde Pain and Loss have no substance but a subject I never doubted but that it is the Loss of the same God and Blessedness formally considered but I am yet very uncertain whether the Blessedness promised by Christ be not far greater in Degree then that to Adam and consequently whether the Poena Damni threatned in the Gospel be not far greater Also I know as to the mediate Blessings Relative they are not the same To be deprived by Unbelief of Remission Reconciliation Adoption the everlasting praising of him that Redeemed us by his blood c. these are true punishments on unbelievers that reject the mercies offered to them but these were none of Adams punishments That was a Negation only to him that is a Privation to them I profess also that I ever took the pain of Sense to be of the same nature which was due to Adams Soul and which is due to unbelievers Only I then did and still do doubt whether any Scripture speak of the everlasting Torments of Adams body or whether it were not only his Soul that should eternally suffer his body being turned to dust and so suffering the penaltie of loss Nay whether the New Testament do not make Resurrection the proper fruit of Christs death and Resurrection But of this I am not fully resolved my self much less will I contend for it But I must needs say that I took not a gradual difference in punishments to be inconsiderable Nay I know that moral specifications are grounded in natural gradual differences And Rewards and Punishments being moral things formally they may and oft must be said to differ specie and not to be the same when naturally they differ but in degree Yea whether in naturals themselves we may not sometimes finde a specification in meer degrees is not so clear as rashly to be denyed There is but a gradual difference between the smallest prick with a pin and to be thrust throow with daggers in 20 places yet I will not say that it is the same punishment §. 58. Mr. Bl. NEither can I assent to that speech To say that Adam should have gon quick to Hell if Christ had not been promised or sin pardoned is to contradict the Scriptures that make death temporal the wages of Sin It were I confess to presume above Scripture but I cannot see it a contradiction of Scripture A burning Feaver Consumption Leprosie Pestilence c. are in Scripture made the wages of sin Yet many go to hell through those diseases c. §. 58. R. B. I Willingly leave every man to his own judgement in this But I think it most probable that the sâ—paration of Soul and body was particularly intended in the threatning Thou shalt dye the death Reas 1. Because this is it that is in prima significatione called Death and the miseries of Life but Tropically much more this or that particular miserie which answers your objection about sicknesses 2. This is it that Christ was necessarily to suffer for us and if it had not been necessary for man to dye thus by the Commination of that Law then it would not thence have been necessary for Christ to dye this Death For it was not the following sentence which you call Leges post laâ—as which Christ came to satisfie or bear but the curse of the Law Gal. 3.13 be being made a curse for us Phil. 2.8 Col. 1.22 Heb. 9.15 by means of death he was to Redeem the transgressors of thâ— first Law without Blood there is no Remission The death of the creatures in sacrificings signified the necessity of this Death of Christ I have met with none but Mr. John Goodwin that saith Christs readyness or willingness to have dyed might have served the turn though the Jews had not put him to death Col. 1.20.14 Eph. 1.7 Rom. 3.25 It s true the Apostle speaking of the necessitie of Blood in Heb. hath reference to the Constitutions of Moses Law but then it must be confessed that that Law did in its Curse much explicate the former and direct us to see what was threatned and what must by the Messiah be suffered for us Heb. 2.14 Christ was to destroy by death him that had the power of death that is the Devil but it seems that the Law gave him his power at the Will and Sentence of the Iudge for execution 1 Cor. 15.26.54 Death is the last enemy to be overcome O Death where is thy sling O Grave where is thy victory This is no doubt the death now in question It is the evils befallen mankinde in execution of the violated Law that are called enemies Though we dye it seems there was a necessitie of Christs dying to loose the bonds of our Death and procure us a Resurrection Rom. 5.17 As by one mans offence death reigned by one c. That one man must dye for the people Câ—iaphus prophesied Joh. 18.14 3. The sentence useth to contain what is threatned in the Law and though part may be remitted yet the other part is the same threatned But Gods Sentence on Adam contained the penaltie of a temporal Death Though he mentioned not the Eternal because he would provide a remedy yet the temporal as one part meant in the threatning he laid on man himself Dust thou art and to dust shalt thou return This is not as you imagine Lex post lata but sententia Judicis Legis violaâ—ae comminationem exequentis When it is said 1 Cor. 15.22 in Adam all dye it is in Adams finning all became guilty of it and in Adam then sentenced all were adjudged to it Which is intimated also Rom. 5.12 Sin entered into the world and death by sin and so death passed on all men for that all have sinned So that the sentence expressing this Death particularly and Christ bearing it necessarily and adde moreover all mankinde for the generality bearing it certainly and also Death signifying primarily the separation of Soul and Body it seems to me most probable that this Death was in special meant in the threatning But you say He takes the same way where his Justice hath satisfaction those that are priviledged from death as the wages of sin thus Dye Reply I do
read a Remonstrant that would say that the work is so ours as that it is only the power that is vouchsafed us by God I conclude therefore that you have not confuted my answer 1. In that you have not disproved the absolute Promise of the first special Grace 2. You have not disproved God to be the Author of our Faith so as that it is his work 3. If you had yet Believing which is our work is not the same thing with giving Faith or moving us to believe which I say is Gods Work §. 56. Of the Life Promised and Death threatned to Adam in the first Law Mr. Bl. I Finde no material difference in the Conditions on Gods part in these Covenants Life is promised in both in Case of Covenant-keeping and Death is threatned in both in case of Covenant-breaking Some indeed have endeavored to finde a great difference in the Life Promised in the Covenant of Works and the Life that is promised in the Covenant of Grace as also in the Death that is threatned in the one and in the other and thereupon move many and indeed inextricable difficulties What Life man should have enjoyed in case Adam had not fallen and what Death man should have dyed in case Christ had not been promised From which two endlessly more by way of Consectary maybe drawn by those that want neither wit nor leisure to debate them In which the best way of satisfaction and avoidance of such puzzeling mazes is to enquire what Scripture means by Life which is the good in the Covenant promised and what by Death which is the evil threattned Now for the first Life contains all whatsoever conduces to true Happiness to make man blessed in Soul and body All good that Christ purchases and Heaven enjoyes is comprised under it in Gospel expressions c. On the contrary under death is comprised all that is injurious to man or mankinde that tends to his misery in Soul and body The damnation of Hell being called death the uttermost of evils being the separation of Soul and body from God Joh. 8.51 1 Joh. 3.14 Sin which leads to it and is the cause of it is called death in like manner Eph. 2.1 And the separation of Soul from the body being called Death sickness plagues are so called in like manner Exod. 10.17 Now happiness being promised to man in Covenant only indefinitely under that notion of Life without limit to this or that way of happiness in this or that place God is still at liberty so that he make man happy where or however to continue happiness to him and is not tyed up in his engagement either for earth or heaven And therefore though learned Camero in his Tract de triplici faedere Thes 9. make this difference between the Covenant of works and the Covenant of Grace In the Covenant of Works which he calls nature Life was promised and a most blessed Life but an animal life in Paradise in the Covenant of Grace a life in Heaven and Spiritual And Mr. Baxter in his Aphor. of Justification p. 5. saith That this Life promised was only the continuance of that state that Adam was then in in Paradise is the opinion of most Divines Yet with submission to better Judgements I see not grounds for it seeing Scripture no way determines the way and kinde c. And indeed there are strong probabilities Heaven being set out by the name of Paradise in Christs speech to the theif on the Cross and in Pauls vision c. §. 56. R. B. 1. YOur opinion in this point is moderate and I think sound I have nothing therefore to say to you but about our different expressions and therefore excuse me if I be short for I love not that work I think your judgement and mine are the same 2. Only remember that it is Mr. Blake also that hath these words pag. 74. The Conditions on mans part in the Covenant of Works were for mans preservation in statu quo in that condition in which he was created to hold him in Communion with God which was his happiness he expected not to be bettered by his obedience either respective to happiness no more is promised then in present he had nor yet in his Qualifications respective to his conformitie to God in Righteousness and true holiness What improvement he might have made of the Habit infused by the exercise of obedience I shall not determine but no change in Qualifications was looked after or given in Promise so far Mr. Blake If the Reader cannot reconcile Mr. Blake and me let him reconcile Mr. Blake with himself and the work is done 3. But I confess that upon more serious consideration of several passages in the New Testament naming and describing the work of Redemption I am ready to think it far more probable that Adam was not created in Patria but in Via not in the highest perfection which he should expect but in the way to it But whether God would have given it him in the same place that he was in or in some other called Heaven upon a remove I take as Mr. Bl. doth to be unrevealed and undetermined in the Promise So that I could finde in my heart to fall a confuting the same opinion in Mr. Blake expressed in these last words which he confuteth in me but that his former save me the labor 4. I confess also that I spoke rashly in saying that it was the opinion of most Divines seeing it so hard a matter to know which way most go in the point I also confess that the judgement of Camero Mr. Ball Mr. Gataker c. swayed much with me but the silence of the text in Gen. much more but I had not so well weighed several Texts in the New Testament as I ought which describing Redemption give some more light into the point The same I say concerning the qualitie of the Death threatned 5. I agree to Mr. Blakes first conclusion that the thing is indeterminate or at lest hard for us to know but I cannot reconcile his premises with that conclusion much less with this his latter speech p. 74. For if as he saies the Life promised was all whatsoever conduces to true happiness to make men blessed in soul and body by conducing to I suppose he meant constituting of then either the Caelestial Degree of Grace and Glory conduces not to that happiness and then not to ours who have no greater natural capacitie or else I see not how it can be said that this greater blessedness was not Promised Doubtless Adam had not in present possession so great a measure of holiness so confirmed a state of Holiness or Glory nor so great and full a fruition of God as Christ hath given us a sure hope of in the Gospel And therefore though he say God is at liberty for the place and way yet that is nothing to the kinde and measure 6. Observe that the words of mine which Mr. Bl.
for my own stile in writing it is but such as I would use in free speaking if any Brethren were present and I think they would then bear it I would not be furious nor yet would I be blockish nor speak as without life about the matters of life I say of earnestness as Seneca of wit Epist 75. Qualis sermo meus esset si unà sederemus aut ambularemus tales esse Epistolas meas volo quae nihil habeant accersitum aut fictum Si fieri posset quid sentiam ostendere quam loqui mallem Etiamsi disputarem nec supploderem pedem c. hoc unum plane tibi approbare vellem omnia me illa sentire quae dicerem nec tantum sentire sed amare Non jejuna esse arida volo quae de rebus tam magnis dicentur Neque enim Philosophia ingenio renuntiat Haec sit propositi nostri summa quod sentimus loquamur quod loquimur sentiamus 4. One thing more I desire that if my words be any where offensive the Reader will do me that right as to consider diligently the words that I Reply to for without that you cannot equally judge of mine Though I do not feel my self smart by any words of Mr K's yet I knew not well how sufficiently to Reply to them without manifesting them to be as they are I remember Hierom speaking of one Evagrius that pleaded for the Stoical impassionateness saith he was Aut Deus aut Saxum I am neither and therefore must speak as I am Yet this I will promise my most offended Brethren that in the harshest of my Writings I will not give my adversaries half so hard language as did either Hierom the most Learned of the Fathers or Calvin the most Judicious and Happy of the Reformers no nor as Dr Twisse the most Learned opposer of the Arminians And I remember what it was that Hierom complained of advers Ruffinum Canino dente me rodunt in publico detrahentes legentes in angulis Iidem Accusatores Defensores eum in aliis probent quod in me reprobant quasi Virtus Vitium non in Rebus sit sed cum Authone mutetur I cannot blame the Reader if he be weary of this long Apoloâ—â—â— and ask To what purpose are all these words To whom I truly answer More for thy sake then mine own because some angry Divines that dissent do raise such an odium against my Writings upon the pretenses before intimated that they may thereby hinder thee from receiving any benefit and entertaining the Truth For my own sake I confess it little troubleth me for I know it hath been the case of my betters and I have greater matters to be troubled for I can say as Vict. Strigelius Epist ad Wesenbech a little before his death Ego editione talium pagellarum nec nominis mei vanam gloriolam quaero nec aucupium pecuniae exerceo Sed cupio Deo declarare meam gratitudinem pro maximis beneficiis Ecclesiae ostendere meam confessionem denique mediocribus ingeniis aliqua ex parte prodesse Horum finium cum mihi optime sim Conscius non metâ—o quorundam insulsas aut venenatas reprehensiones sed me meos labores Filio Dei commendo Scio meum Vitae curriculum breve exiguum esse Quare in hac brevitate peregrinationis ea dicam scribam faciam quae migrationem in vitam aeternam non impediunt This Learned Divine Strigelius himself and before him Melancthon as peaceable as Learned and many another besides them also have been so tired with the censures and reproaches of Divines that it made them if not weary of living yet more willing to die So that Melancthon thus wrote down before his death the motives of his willingness to leave this world A sinistris Discedes a Peccatis Liberaberis ab aerumnis a Rabie Theologorum A dextris Venies in Lucem Videbis Deum Intueberis Filium Dei Disces illa mira arcana quae in hac vita intelligere non potuisti Cur sic simus conditi Qualis sit copulatiâ— duarum naturarum in Christo Nay it is not only Dissenters that do terrifie people from reading what I have written by telling them of I know not what latent dangerous Errours but even they that are of the same opinion with me For example I lately wrote that the Doctrine of Infallible perseverance of all the sanctified was my strong opinion and I was perswaded of its truth and I argued for it from Scripture yet because I so far acknowledged my own weakness as to say that I was not so fully certain of it as of the Articles of the Creed and because I say I think it unsafe for a backsliding scandalous Christian to venture his salvation meerly on this controverted Point what offence is taken what reports spread abroad some proclaiming that I wrote against Perseverance even when I wrote for it Others that I am turn'd Arminian Others that I am dangerously warping In so much that some of my nearest friends for whose good I published that Book were ready to throw it by for fear of being infected with my doctrine against Perseverance The enemies Instruments be not all unlearned nor ungodly For my part I commend their zeal against Errour so it be Errour indeed and so they will moderate it with Charity and Humility I am as strongly perswaded that its the Dissenters that erre as they are that its I. And were they as zealous against Errour indeed I think I might have spared the labour of such Writings as these But I remember how they reprehended Beatus Rhenanus for his supposed coveteousness Beatus est Beatus attamen sibi So are such Brethren charitable sibi suis And all this comes a studio partium and because the Doctrine of the Unity of Christs Body and the Communion of Saints as Saints is not reduced to practice and we love not men so much for being of the same Body as for being of the same Side or Party with us nor for being in the same Christ as for being of the same Opinion If he that knows Christ knows all things and if Interest in Christ alone be enough to make us Happy then is it enough to make our Brother Amiable though still we may be allowed the dislike of his faults Which side the Truth lies on in the Points here debated I willingly leave the Reader to judge according to the evidence that shall appear to him in the perusal I desire no more of him but Diligence Impartiality and Patience in his studying it And I again intreat my Brethren to believe that I write this in an unfained Love of Peace and them and that accordingly they will receive it and where they meet with any of the effects of my infirmity which may seem provoking and injurious to them they will compassionately remit them remembring that Heaven will shortly Reconcile our differences Kederminster Aug. 1. 1653.
produce to teach the world that the only justifying act of faith is The Accepting of Justification as merited by Christs blood or the Accepting of Christs Righteousness to justifie them it is not hard for an unprejudiced man to discern For my part in all my experience of the case of the ungodly that I have trial of I can finde no commoner cause of their general delusion and perdition then this very doctrine which they have generally received though not in such exact terms aâ— it is taught them I never met with the most rebellious wretch except now and then one under terrors but when they have sinned their worst they still think to be saved because they believe And what is their beleeving why they beleeve that Christ died for them and therefore God will forgive them and they trust for pardon and salvation to Christs death and Gods mercy This were good if this were not all but if Christ were also received as their Sovereign and Sanctifier and Teacher But if this were the only justifying act as they usually speak then I should not know how to disprove him that should tell me that all men in the world shall be saved that beleeve the Gospel to be true or at least the far greatest part of the most wicked men For I am certain that they are willing not to be damned and therefore Accept or are Willing of Christ to save them from damnation and I am sure they are Willing to be pardoned as fast as they sin and that is to be justified and therefore must needs be Willing of Christ to pardon them supposing that they beleeve the Gospel to be true What therefore shall I say if a wicked wretch thus argue He that hath the only justifying act of faith is justified But that have I for I Accept of Christ to forgive and justifie me by his blood Therefore c Shall I tell him that he dissembleth and is not Willing Why 1. Long may I so tell him before he will beleeve me when he feels that I speak falsly and slander him 2. And I should know that I slander him my self Supposing that he beleeve that there is no pardon but by Christs blood as the devils and many millions of wicked men do beleeve For I know no man in his wits can be willing to be unpardoned and to burn in hell Shall I give him the common answer the best that ever was given to me that though the only justifying act be the receiving Christ or his Righteousness to justifie us yet this must be ever accompanied with the receiving him as Sovereign and a resolution to obey him Perhaps I may so puzzle him for want of Logick or Reason but else how easily may he tell me that this receiving Christ as Lord hath either the nature of a medium ad finem or not If it be no medium the want of it in this case cannot hinder the Justification of that man that is sure he hath the sole justifying act it self For as meer signs or idle concomitants do nothing to the effect so the want of them hinders not the effect where all causes and means are present But if I say that this act of faith is a means to Justification then I must either make it a Cause or a Condition or invent some new medium not yet known But you say Soveraignty doth not cleanse us nor doth blood command us Ans 1. How ill is Soveraignty put in stead of the Soveraign I say not that the reception of Christs Soveraignty doth â—ustifie those words may have an ill sense but we are justified by receiving Christ as our Soveraign which much differs from the former 2. Christ as Soveraign doth cleanse us both from the guilt and power of sinne by actual Remission or Justification and by Sanctification 3. Suppose you speak true as you do if you mean it only of Meriting our cleansing What is this to our Question But you adde Faith in his blood not faith yeelding to his Soveraignty doth justifie us Ans This is something to the purpose if it had been proved But will a nude and crude Assertion change mens judgements or should you have expected it A text you cite and therefore it might seem that you thought it some proof of this Rom. 3.24 But all the force of your Argument is from your dangerous addition which who will take for good Exposition The text faith He is set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his Blood And you adde Not through faith in his Command 1. Sed quo jure nescio Your exclusion is either upon supposition that faith in his Blood is equipollent to faith in his Blood only or else it is on some mysterious ground which you should the rather have revealed because it is not obvious to your ordinary Reader to discover it without your revelation If the former 1. By what authority do you adde only in your interpretation 2. Will you exclude also his Obedience Resurrection Intercession c When by the obedience of one many are made righteous and Rom. 8.33 34. It is God that justifieth who is he that condemneth It is Christ that died yea rather that is risen again who is even at the right hand of God who also maketh intercession for us 2. But the thing that you had to prove was not the exclusion of faith in his Command but of faith in Christ as Lord and Teacher or either Receiving Christ as Ruler goeth before the receiving of his particular Commands And for the text Rom. 3.24 It was fittest for Paul to say by faith in his blood because he intends to connotâ— both what we are justified by ex parte Christi and what ex parte nostri but the former pâ—incipally I will explain my thoughts by a similitude or two Suppose a Rebell be Condemned and lye in prison waiting for Execution and the Kings Son being to raise an Army buyeth this Rebell with all his fellow prisoners from the hand of Justice and sendeth to them this message If you will thankfully acknowledge my favours and take me hereafter for your Prince or General and list your selves under me I will pardon you or give you the pardon which I have purchased and moreover will give you places of Honour and Profit in my Army Here now if the Question be What it is on the Princes part that doth deliver the prisoner It is his ransom as to the Impetration or Preparation and it is his free-Grant which doth it as to the actual Deliverance If it be askt What is it that Honoureth or Enricheth him It is the place of Honour and Riches that by the Prince is freely given him But if you ask on the offenders part What it is that delivereth him as the condition It is not his accepting Pardon and Deliverance or the Prince as a Pardoner or Ransomer that is the sole Condition of his pardon and deliverance from death Nor is it the Accepting of the
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
not believe you that any are Priviledged from death as the wages of sin who dye This is the part of the penalty which the sentence passed on the offendor himself for all the promised satisfaction by a Redeemer Nor did the Redeemer satisfie to that end to prevent our death or to cause that it should not be the wages of sin but to deliver us from under the power of it Where you say that this way of God with unbelievers is voluntary not necessitated I Reply So it may be nevertheless because it was meant in the threatning It is dangerous to imagine that God is ever the less free or more necessitated so as that his actions should be less voluntary because of his determinations He doth as voluntarily do what he hath predetermined to do and foretold he will do as if he had done neither God changeth not and therefore he is as voluntary in the execution as he was in the determination §. 59. Of the Law as made to Christ Mr. Bl. CHap. 6. p. 25. And though Mr. Baxter doubts whether it be any part of Gods Legislative Will as it referrs to Christ but only as it belongs to us as a Prophesie what God would do in the advancing of Christ and his Kingdom and so of us Append p. 39. Yet me thinks it is plain seeing Christ acknowledges a command from his Father in laying down his life Joh. 10.18 and the Apostle speaking of the work saith He was obedient in it c. §. 59. R. B. ONe that had not read what I write would think by your Answer that I had made a doubt whether there be any Law made to Christ at all or not Whereas I spake only of that called the Covenant between the Father and the Son made from Eternity or the promises expressed by the Prophets as to Christ in his meer Divine nature not yet incarnate For I conceive that Christ before the incarnation may not be said to be a subject and that God is not properly said to command himself or covenant with himself or make promises by Prophets to himself But I deny not but that Christ as man was under a Law yea and a Law peculiar to himself whereto no other creature is subject even the Law of Mediation which deserves in the body of Theologie a peculiar place and the handling of it as distinct from all the Laws made with us men is of special use and if well done would do much to remove the stumbling blocks which the Antinomians fall upon §. 60. Whether the Sacraments seal the conditional Promise absolutely or the conclusion conditionally when only one of the Premises is of Divine Revelation And whether this conclusion be de fide I am Justified and shall be saved Mr. Bl. p. 38. BVt that which I may not pass is somewhat of concernment both to my self and the present cause in hand c. §. 60. R. B. I Need not transcribe these words being of another and not spoke to me But I will pass my conjecture to his questions 1. I conjecture that the Querist by Evading meant Owning and Justifying the fact and so evading the blame 2. To the second I conjecture the Querist had been lately conversant in Mr. Blakes book and so it was in his memorie and whether he knew what those whom you mention do hold I cannot tell 3. To the third If by Sacramental sealing you mean Conditional sealing I conjecture his conceit might be this that as the Promise may be conditionally tendred to Infidels Murderers or any other so might the Seal if it were but Conditional as the Promise As we may say to the worst If thou wil◠believe thou shalt be saved so might we conditionally seal salvation to him But I take this to be a great mistake §. 61. Mr. Bl. p. 40. MR Baxter who is put to it to stoop too low in the answer of such trifles in his answer to this now in hand hath taken much pains to finde out the way of the Sacraments sealing and in the result he and I shall not be found much to differ yet seeing providence made me the occasion of starting the question I shall take leave to take some view of what is said Mr. Baxter saith It is in vain to enquire whether the Sacraments do seal Absolutely or Conditionally till you first know what is that they do seal and in order to the finding this out he layes down the way that a Christian doth gather the assurance of his Justification and Salvation which is thus He that believeth is Justified and shall be saved but I believe therefore I am Justified and shall be saved I confess if I had been put upon a discovery of that which is sealed in the Sacraments this Syllogism I think would scarce have come into my thoughts seeing the Seal is Gods as Mr. Baxter observes I should have rather looked for one from him then to have supposed a believer to have been upon the frame of one §. 61. R. B. THis dispute is so confused and so much about words that I would not have meddled with it let men have made what use of yours they pleased but only for some matters of greater moment that fall in upon the by in your handling it I think your meaning and mine is the same 1. I not only said as you express that the Seal is Gods but gave my Reasons to prove a mutual Sealing as well as a mutual Covenanting 2. What reason have you why I might not illustrate the matter by this Syllogism as well as another 3. If you will have a Syllogism of Gods making why did you not tell us when or where you found it and let us see as well as you whence you had it that we may know God made it God doth not nectere Syllogismos for himself nor actu immanente if he do it it is only for us per actum transeuntem and then it may be found in his word But more of that anon 4. I should think though for illustration I judged it not unuseful that it is of no necessitie for you or me to talk of any Syllogism at all in the enquiry after the sealed proposition If it be but one proposition we may express it alone If more we may distinctly express them rather then that shall breed any difference I care not whether my Syllogism be mentioned any more Let us see what yours is §. 62. Mr. Bl. ANd such a one I should have looked to have gathered up from the Institution and thus I conceive framed He to whom I give Christ to him I give Justification and Salvation But here I give thee Christ therefore to thee I give Justification and Salvation §. 63. R. B. 1. WHat mean you by gathering it Do you mean that you will read it there ready formed If so shew us the Chapter and Verse But that must not be expected for you say anon that it is something not written that is sealed
their own conditions I think the solidity and great necessity of all these distinctions is beyond Dispute These things being thus 1. What confusion is it to talk of the moral Law being the only Rule when it is not one thing that is called the moral Law and who knows what you mean 2. How strange a thing is it to my ears that you even you should so wholly own this and so heartily profess that you take the Moral Law for the only Rule For suppose you take it for the preceptive part of the Law of nature only as I think you do 1. That is but part of that very Law of nature Doth not the Law of nature as well as the positive Law determine de Debito paenae as well as de Debito officii and is a Rule of punishment as well as duty 2. Or if you took it for the whole Law of nature is that the only Rule 1. What say you for matter of duty to the positive Precepts of the Gospel of Baptism the Lords Supper the Lords day the Officers and Government of the Church c. Is the Law of nature the only Rule for these If you say They are reducible to the second Commandment I demand 1. What is the second Commandment for the Affirmative part but a general precept to worship God according to his Positive Institution And doth this alone suffice Doth it not plainly imply that there are and must be positive Laws instituting a way of worship 2. Do you take the Precept de genere to be equivalent to the Precepts de speciebus or to be a sufficient Rule without them If the Moral Law or Law of Nature be to you the only Rule and a perfect Rule then you need no other And if God had only written the ten Commandments or only said in general Thou shalt worship God according to his positive Institutions would it have been your duty to have Baptized administred the Lords Supper c. Doth the general Precept constitute this particular Ordinance as my duty If not as nothing more certain then the general Law is not the only Rule nor sufficient in omni parte though sufficient in suo genere ad partem propriam for the constitution of Worship Ordinances Church Offices c. or acquainting us with our duty therein Moreover did Christ in Instituting these Ordinances and Officers do any more then was done before or not If no more 1. It is superfluous 2. Shew where it was done before 3. Sure the fourth Commandment did not at once command both the seventh day of the week and the first If more then the former was not sufficient nor is now the only Rule Moreover doth not the Scripture call Christ a Lawgiver and say The Law shall go out of Zion c. Isa 2.3 And is he not the Anointed King of the Church and therefore hath Legislative power And will he not use the principal part of his Prerogative 2. I think the Moral Law taken either for the Law given to Adam or written in Tables of stone is not a sufficient Rule to us now for beleeving in Jesus Christ no nor the same Law of nature as still in force under Christ For a general command of beleeving all that God revea◠〈◊〉 is not the only Rule of our faith but the particular revelation and precept are part And a general command to submit to what way God shall prescribe for our justification and salvation is not the only Rule but that particular prescript is part And a general command of receiving every offered benefit is not the only or sufficient Rule for receiving Christ without the Gospel-offer of him and his benefits 3. And I suppose you grant that as mans soul hath an understanding and a will the former being a passage to the later in the former practical receptions being but initiate and imperfect and in the later perfected so Laws have their prefaces declaring the grounds and occasions of them oft times and so the Laws of God have their Narratives Histories and Doctrines concerning the grounds the subject the occasion c. as well as the more essential parts viz. Precepts and Sanction These I spoke not of before in the distinctions Now do you indeed think that the Law of nature or what ever you now mean by the old Rule and Moral Law is the sufficient and only Rule of Knowledge Judgement and Faith I take it for granted that you will acknowledge the assenting act of faith to be in the understanding and that the Word of God is the rule of this assent Had you in the old Rule or Moral Law a sufficient and only Rule for your faith in the Article of Christs Incarnation Birth Life Innocency Miracles Death Burial Resurrection Assension full Dominion in his humane nature c. Was this Article in the Creed before Christs coming Except ye beleeve that I am he ye shall die in your sinnes Besides matter of faith is also matter of duty for it is our duty to beleeve all these Truths But I think it was then no mans duty to believe that this Jesus the son of Mary was the Saviour before he was Incarnate or to believe that Christ was Dead Ascended c. Therefore that which you call the Old Rule is not as you say the Only Rule of our Duty in Beleeving 4. But what if all this had been left out and you had proved the Moral Law the only Rule of duty doth it follow that therefore it is the only Rule Sure it is not the only Rule of rewarding For if you take the Moral Law for the meer preceptive part of the Law of nature then it is no Rule at all of rewarding for it is the promise and not the precept that doth make due the reward And if you take the moral Law for the whole Law of nature it is a very great Dispute whether it be Regula pramiandi at all much more as to that great reward which is now given in the Law of grace by Christ your self deny it pag. 74. I dare not say that if we had perfectly obeyed Everlasting Glory in Heaven had been naturally our due And for Remission of sin and the Justification of a sinner and such like they are such mercies as I never heard the Law of nature made the only Rule of our right to them 5. The same I may say of the Rule of punishment The privation of a purchased offered Remission and Salvation is one part of the penalty of the new Law of which the Moral Law can scarce be said the only Rule None of them that were bidden shall taste of the Supper 6. But the principal thing that I intend is that the Moral Law is not the only Rule what shall be the condition of Life or Death and therefore not the only Rule according to which we must now be denominated and hereafter sentenced Just or Unjust For if the accuser say He hath not performed