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
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
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
is to dissolve the obligation to punishment and to constitute the condition of this Right or Pardon For Donaâ—tis est constituere conditionem etiam in ipsa instrumentali Donatione But faith doth not conferre Right for your self say It doth but receive it It doth not dissolve the obligation but accept a Saviour to dissolve it It doth not constitute the condition of right for you acknowledge it is the condition it self To conclude this Point for the compromising or shortening this difference between you and me I will take your fairer offer pag. 75. or else give you as fair an offer of my own Yours is this Faith is considered under a double notion First as an instrument or if that word will not be allowed as the way of our interest in Christ and priviledges by Christ In this general I easily agree with you If that satisfie not I propound this Call you it an instrument of receiving Christ and consequently righteousness and give me leave to call it precisely a condition or a moral disposition of the subject to be justified and I will not contend with you So be it you will 1. not lay too great a stress on your own notion nor make it of flat necessity nor joyn with them that have made the Papists believe that its a great part of the Protestant Religion and consequently that in confuting it they refell the Protestants 2. Nor say any more that it gives efficacy and power to the Gospel to justifie us and is more fitly then the Gospel called an instrument 3. Yea I must desire that you will forbear calling it at all an instrument of Justification and be content to call it an instrument of receiving Justification and I would you would confess that too to be an improper speech If you resolve to go further let me desire you hereafter 1. To remember that its you that have the Affirmative that faith is the instrument of justifying us and I say It is not written you adde to Scripture Therefore shew where it is written expressely or by consequence 2. Do not blame me for making sincere obedience part of the meer condition wherein I think you say as much as I and so as giving too much to man when you give intollerably so much more as to make him the instrumental efficient cause of forgiving and justifying himself 3. Above that I have yet said I pray forget not one thing to prove faith to be the instrumental efficient of sentential Justification which is most properly and fully so called as well as of Legal constitutive Justification For that 's the great point of which you have just nothing pace tui si ita dicam of which you should have said much And so much for the Controversie § 28. Of Evangelical Personal Righteousness Mr Bl. Pag. 110 c. THere is yet a third opinion which I may well doubt whether I understand but so far as I do understand I am as far from assent to it as either of the former and that is of those who do not only assert a personal inherent Righteousness as well as imputed against the Antinomians but also affirm that this Righteousness is compleat and perfect which if it were meant only of the perfection of the subject as opposed to hypocrisie dissimulation or doubleness implying that they do not only pretend for God but are really for him that they do not turn to him feignedly as Israel was sometime charged Jer. 3.10 but with an upright heart Or of the perfection or entireness of the object respecting not one or only some but all Commandments which is called a perfection of parts we might readily assent to it The Covenant cals for such perfection Gen. 17.1 Walk before me and be thou perfect and many have their witness in Scripture that they have attained to it as Noah Gen. 7.9 Job 1.1 Hezekiah Isa 38.3 But a perfection above these is maintained a perfection compleat and full Righteousness signifies as is said a conformity to the Rule and a conformity with a quatâ—nus or an imperfect rectitude is not a true conformity or rectitude at all Imperfect Righteousness is not Righteousness but unrighteousness It is a contradiction in adjectoâ— Though holiness be acknowledged to be imperfect in all respects where perfection is expected in reference to the degree that it should obtain or the degree which it shall obtain or in reference to the excellent object about which it is exercised or in reference to the old Covenant or the directive and in some sense the preceptive part of the new Covenant In all these respects it is imperfect and Righteousness materially considered is holiness and therefore thus imperfect but formally considered it is perfect Righteousness or none this not in relation to the old Rule but the new Covenant Upon this account they are charged with gross ignorance that use and understand the word Righteous and Righteousness as they relate to the old Rule as if the godly were called Righteous besides their imputed Righteousness only because their sanctification and good works have some imperfect agreement with the Law of works This and much more to assert a personal perfect inherent Righteousness as is said all which as it is here held out is new to me and I must confess my self in ignorance all over I never took imperfect Righteousness to imply any such contradiction any more then imperfect holiness §. 28. R. B. THe third opinion you rise against is that which you take to be mine as your citing my words doth manifest but you confess your self uncertain whether you understand it or not There is a possibility then that when you do understand me you may prove your self of the same Opinion In the mean time it is your Reasons which must justifie your strong dissent which I shall be bold to examine Where you say I do not only assert a personal inherent Righteousness as well as imputed against the Antinomians but also affirm that this Righteousness is perfect I Reply Either you suppose the later proposition to be an addition to the former in terms only or in sense also If only in terms the sense being the same I suppose you would not oppose it If in sense then it is either somewhat real or somewhat modal which you suppose the later to adde to the former Real it is not for Res perfectio Rei are not distinguished as Res Res but as Res Modus It is therefore but a modal addition And it is such a Modus as is convertible with Ens. And therefore there is as much imported in the first Proposition We have a personal inherent Righteousness as in the second We have a perfect personal inherent Righteousness For Ens Perfectum are as convertible as Ens Bonum or Ens Verum You adde If it were meant only of the perfection of the subject as opposed to hypocrisie c. or of the perfection or entireness of the object
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
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
That Right to a benefit is the meer effect of the Gift Donation or Revealed Will of the Giver And therefore no Act of the Receiver hath any more interest or any other then it pleaseth the Donor to assign or appoint it to have So that suppositâ actus naturâ all the formall Civil interest comes from Gods meer Will as Donor for to the Absolute Benefactor doth it belong as to conferre all Right to his freely-given Benefits so to determine of the Time and Manner of Conveyance and so of the Conditions on the Receivers part The nature of the Act of Faith is caused by 〈◊〉 as Creator of the old and new Creature I mean of our natural faculties and their supernatural endowments or dispositions And therefore this is presupposed in ordine naturae to faiths Legal interest As God is first the Maker of earth before he is the Maker of Adams body Faith is to be considered as being Faith i. e. such acts exercised about such objects in order of nature before it can be rightly considered as justifying or the condition of Justification Seeing therefore it receives all its formal Legal interest from God as Legislator and Donor of Christ and his benefits which is after its material aptitude ad hoc officium its interest must not be gathered directly ex natura actus but ex constitutione donantis ordinantis And therefore you must first prove out of the Gospel that It is the Ordination of God that as Christs several actions have their several effects for us and on us so our faith shall be the proper condition of each of these various effects quâ apprehendit as it Beleeveth or Accepteth each distinct effect or Christ distinctly as the cause of that effect etiam consideratum in modo causandi But alas how invisible is the Proof of this in all your Writings I will leave the rest of the Propositions by which I intended here together to have opened some more of my sense till afterwards because I will not interrupt the present business Here either my Understanding is too shallow to reach your sense or else you are guilty quoad literam of very great confusion which one would think should have befallen you at any time rather then when you are blaming others of unsufferable confusion and yet quoad sensum involutum of more dangerous unscriptural unproved Distinction 1. Your expressions confound Christ and his Actions with mans faith in our Justification Or these two Questions By what are we justified ex parte Christi and By what are we justified ex parte nostri 2. Your implied sense even the heart of your reasoning consisteth in this assertion that As our Right as to the several benefits received is to be ascribed distinctly to several distinct Causes on Christs part so also as distinctly are the particular Benefits quoad Debitum vel Titulum to be ascribed to the several distinct apprehensions of these Benefits as most say or of Christ as diversly causing them as some say And here I cannot but complain of a treble injustice that you seem to me guilty of even in this elaborate Treat wherein you correct the Errors of so many others 1. Against the Truth and Word of God in implying it to have done that even in the great Point the Constitution of the Condition of Justification and Salvation which is nor to be found done in all the Scripture 2. Against the souls of men 1. In such nice mincing and cutting the Condition of their salvation to their great perplexity if they receive your doctrine 2. And also in not affording them one word of Scripture or Reason for the proof of it which is injustice when you are Confuting others and Rectifying the world in so great a Point 3. Lastly and leastly it is evident injustice to your Friend to Accuse him for it is no hard matter to know whom you mean with confounding the distinct parts of Christs Mediatorship which he still distinguisheth as exactly as he can though he do nor distribute as many offices to Faith as there are objects for it or as he doth to Christs several Works Why did you not name one line where I do confound the parts of Christs Offices I pray you do it for me in your next I will not trouble you much with Arguments for my opinion in this Point seeing you meddle with none already laid down and seeing I have done it over and over to others and because I am now but Answering to your Confutation Only let me tell you that the Proof lieth on your part For when I have once proved that God giveth Christ and his Benefits to man on Condition he will Beleeve in Christ or Accept him If you will now distinguish and say It is Accepting his satisfaction which is the Condition of Justification and Accepting him as King which is the Condition of Sanctification or Glorification c. you must prove this to be true For non est distinguendum vel limitandum ubi Lex non distinguis vel limitat If God say Beleeve in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and you say Beleeving in him as Priest is the only Condition of saving thee from guilt and Beleeving in him as King is the only Condition of saving thee from the power of sin c. you must prove this which you say Or if you will not say It is the only Condition but the only instrument you give up the Cause For the word Condition is it that expresseth its neerest Legal Interest in justifying or conveying any Right and that which you call its Instrumentality is but the natural Aptitude and Remote Interest 1. It is the Receiving of Christ as Christ that justifieth as the Condition of Justification But he is not received as Christ if not as Lord-Redeemer 2. Justifying faith is say the Assembly the Receiving of Christ as he is offered in the Gospel But he is offered in the Gospel as Saviour and Lord and not as Saviour only Therefore c. 3. Justifying faith is the Receiving of Christ as a full Saviour But that cannot be except he be received as Lord. For to save from the power of sin is as true a part of the Saviours Office as to save from the guilt 4. Justifying faith receiveth Christ as he justifieth us or as he is to justifie us But he doth justifie us as King and Judge and Benefactor as he satisfieth and meriteth in the form of a servant under the Law 5. If receiving Christ as a Satisfier and Meriter be the only faith that gives right to Justification then on the same grounds you must say It is the only faith that gives right to further Sanctification and to Glorification For Christ Merited one as well as the other 6. Rejecting Christ as King is the condemning sin Therefore receiving him as King is the justifying faith Luk. 19.27 Those mine enemies that would not that I should reign over them bring
c. The reason of the consequent is because unbelief condemneth at least partly as it is the privation of the justifying faith I speak of that condemnation or peremptory sentence which is proper to the new Law and its peculiar condemning sin eminently so called 7. Psal 2. Kissing the Son and submitting to him as King is made the condition of escaping his wrath 8. Matth. 11.28 29 30. The condition of Ease and Rest from guilt as well as power of sin is our coming to Christ as a Teacher and Example of meekness and lowliness and our Learning of him and Taking on us his yoke and burden 9. That faith which is the Condition of Salvation is the Condition of Justification or Remission But it is the receiving of Christ as King as well as Satisfier that is the Condition of Salvation Therefore c. 1. Justification at judgement and Salvation from hell and adjudication to Glory are all on the same conditions Mat. 25. ubique 2. Justification is but the justifying of our Right to Salvation i. e. sentencing us as Non reos Paenae quia Dissoluta est obligatio quibus debetur praemium Therefore Justification and Salvation must needs have the same conditions on our part 3. Scripture no where makes our faith or act of faith the Condition of Justification and another of Salvation But contrarily ascribeth both to one 4. When Paul argueth most zealously against Works and for Faith only it is in respect to Salvation generally and not to Justification only Eph. 2.8 9. By grace ye are saved through faith c. Not of works lest any man should boast Tit. 3.5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his Mercy he saved us c. Never more was said against Justification by Works which Paul excludes then against Salvation by them Nor is it any more dishonour to Christ that he should give Justification or Remission on Condition of our Accepting him as King then that he should give Salvation on that Condition 5. Pardon of sin and freedom from hell must needs have the same Condition For pardon respecteth the punishment as truly as the sin Pana Vaenia sunt adversa Pardon dissolveth guilt Guilt is the obligation to punishment Yet I speak here only of a plenary and continued pardon 10. Lastly If Accepting Christ as Lord-Redeemer be the Fides quae Justificat i.e. quae est conditio Justificationis then it is neerly strictly and properly the justifying act of faith as the accepting of Christs Righteousness is But the Antecedent is granted by all Divines that I have had to do with Therefore c. For the general cheat is by the distinction of Fides quae Justificat that is say they the Accepting of Christ as Saviour and Lord by a faith disposed to fruitfulness in obedience and Fides quâ Justificat and that is the Accepting of Christs Righteousness as our formal Righteousness say some Or the Accepting of Christs Righteousness as the meritorious cause of our Righteousness say others Or the Accepting of Christ himself as Priest say others Now this Fides Quâ either respecteth the meer matter of faith or it respecteth the formality of the effect or it respecteth the Formal Reason of faiths interest in the effect ut medium vel causa 1. If quâ respect only the matter of faith then 1. it is an unfit phrase for quâ and quatenus are strictly used to express the formal Reason of things 2. And then the Accepting of Christ as Lord must be the Fides Quâ too for that is confessed to be materially an act of that faith which justifieth 2. If Quâ respect the formality of the effect and so the respect of faith to that effect rather then another then faith is not justifying quâ recipit Christum sed quâ justificat And so the distinction containeth this truth That fides quae sanctificat etiam justificat sed non quâ sanctificat è contra But neither of these can be the sense of them that use this distinction in our case 3. It must therefore be the former reason of faiths interest in justifying that is expressed by Quâ and then it implieth the begging of the Question or this false supposition that Fides quâ fides justificat I mean not qua fides in genere but quâ haec fides viz quae est fiducia in Christum satisfactorem vel acceptatio Christi Indeed the term Accepting implieth the gift and offer and the constitution of that acceptance for the condition But the Act it self is but the Matter apt to be the condition If Christ had been given or pardon absolutely or on some other condition then beleeving in him would not have justified Therefore fides in Christum quâ talis doth not justifie but quâ conditio Testamenti praestita though fides in Christum qua talis had in its nature a singular aptitude to be chosen and appointed to this Honour and Office So much to shew the vanity of that distinction of much more that might be said Further the consequence of the major Proposition of my Argument is made past all dispute to them that will but well consider this To be the condition of our Justification speaks the nearest interest of faith in our Justification that is as it is medium legale or that kinde of causality which it hath which is to be causa sine qua non cum qua Therefore it is a meer impossibility that the Receiving Christ as Lord should be the condition of our Justification or the fides quae est conditio as they speak and yet that we should not be justified by it as a condition when performed It is no sounder speech then to say that is an efficient cause which doth not effect Some Conditions and most among men are Moral impulsive causes Faith is rather a removens prohibens and eaâ—h nothing in it that so well deserves the title of a Cause as of a Condition though unbelief may be said to be the Cause of our Not-being justified as such causes are said to move God when we speak according to the manner of men Indeed if they will say according to their principles that Fides in Christum Dominum quae est conditio non justificat per modum instrumenti I shall grant it But then 1. I shall say as much de fide in Christum satisfacientem 2. Thus they grant it the interest of a Condition in our Justification and I intend no more We are justified by faith as the Condition of Justification Therefore we are justified by every act of faith which is the Condition For A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia Thus I have given you a few of those many reasons which might be given to prove that the Accepting of Christ for Lord-Redeemer and not only as Satisfier or not only his Righteousness is that Faith by which as a Condition we are justified And what sad effects it may
other instrument from acting or effecting till they are performed but not to give efficacy and power to his Testament If the gift be in diem the instrument receives not efficacy and power from the Time quando venit dies no more doth it per praestationem conditionis 3. Your terms of Faith 's giving power through the Spirit tell me that sure you still look at the wrong act of the Gospel not at its moral act of Conveyance or Donation but at its real operation on mans heart For neither Scripture nor Divines use to say The Gospel remitteth sin or justifieth by the Spirit Nor doth the Spirit otherwise do it then by enditing the Gospel unless by the Spirit you mean the Godhead in Essence and not in Personality Sanctification is ascribed to the Spirit as the efficient but so is not forgiveness and Justification Nor do I like your phrase as to sanctification it self That faith conveys efficacy and power to the Gospel through the Spirit For 1. I had rather say The Gospel and Spirit or the Spirit by the Gospel convey efficacy and power to faith then faith to the Gosâ—el 2. How faith should convey this through the Spirit is quite beyond my reach Doth the Spirit receive any influx from faith and thereby a power and then convey this to the Gospel from our faith But it s like you mean the Spirit doth it through faith §. 25. Mr Bl. SO that neither the Gospel nor faith in the Gospel should in this office of an instrument in Justification be denied their due honour The Gospel received by faith is a plenary instrument in this work and faith embracing the tender and promise of the Gospel The Gospel is an outward instrument saith Ravanelly faith an inward they both make up one instrument full and compleat yet faith is more aptly and fitly called an instrument Seeing that faith gives efficacy as an instrument to the Word the Word may be without faith and so no instrument at all but faith alway presupposeth the Word of promise it is not without its object §. 25. R. B. 1. HAd you first proved any such honour due to faith and so to man as to be the instrument of Justification yea and more fitly then the Gospel so to be called then you might fairly have thus concluded But I like not Arguments that have but one part being all Conclusion I will say more for the Gospels instrumentality Signum voluntatis Donatoris constituens jus ad beneficium Donatum etsi in diem vel sub conditione est Donatoris instrumentum maximè proprium Sed Testamentum Christi est signum voluntatis diviâ—â— jus nostrum ad Christum Justificationem passivam constituens viz. sub conditione actualiter quando praestatur conditio Ergo Testamentum Christi est instrumentum hujus donationis maximè proprium For the major examine it by all the qualifications of an instrument and it will appear undoubted 1. Subservit causae principali scilicet voluntati donatoris 2. Actio ejus principalis sunt eadem actio scilicet Donatio vel constituere debitum beneficii 3. The true definition of an instrument agrees to it Instrumentum est quod ex directione alterius principalis agentis influit ad produceudum effectum se nobiliorem Vel per quod causa alia operatur sic ut hoc elevetur ad effectum se nobiliorem seu ultra perfectionem suam actionis suae 4. Yea it is the most perfect instrument for instrumentum eo melius est quanto magis est fini proportionatum ut Aquin. 1.2 ae q. 188. a. 7. But Gods Legal grant is most perfectly proportioned to the conveyance of right to Christ and his benefits Prove this much of faith as to Justification before you again tell the world that faith is more fitly called an instrument of Justification 2. If the Gospel received by faith be a plenary instrument of justifying as you say Then 1. How is faith more fitly called an instrument 2. Then Recipere Evangelium is instrumentum justificandi maximè proprium as you think making the Gospel a compleat instrument 3. If faith and the Gospel be both full compleat instruments then either ejusdem effecti per eandem actionem vel per diversas not per eandem actionem For 1. Then they should be one instrument 2. Their esse is so different that their operari must needs be different 2. If per diversas actiones then coordinate or subordinate You think subordinate it seems and that faith gives power and efficacy to the Gospel If so then faith doth modo sensu nobiliore Justificare quam Testamentum But that 's farre from truth For 1. It is most proper to say The Covenant-grant justifieth or the Law of grace justifieth but it is less proper to say Faith justifieth and Scripture never saith so that I know of but that we are justified by faith 2. You say your self that faith is but a passive instrument but the Testament is active morally in its kinde 3. Recipere Evangelium is not so properly Justificare as is immediate Justificare Remittere Jus ad Christum remissionem constituere which is the Gospels act Credere non est tam propriè Justificare Much more might be said of this if necessary 4. How plain a contradiction do you speak that faith and the Gospel are two instruments and that both make one compleat instrument They might have been said to be materially two things making one instrument without contradiction but not without notorious untruth 5. For it is no better when you say they make up one compleat instrument For 1. You said before that faith gives power and efficacy to the Gospel which if true then the Gospel is an instrument subordinate to faith and therefore not one with it 2. The Gospel is causa totalis in suo genere fully as an instrument conveying right quando vel venit dies vel praestatur conditio therefore it is not causa partialis vel pars causae 3. There is such a disparity in the actions of each viz. Credere and Remittere vel donare Christum Remissionem that they cannot possibly as causae partiales constitute one compleat cause For one immediatly and properly produceth the effect the other not so 4. You say that they are both passive instruments But so they cannot make one instrument For surely nec patiuntur idem nec ab eodem nec formam Justificationis Evangelium patiendo recipit Though indeed your authority must do more then your reasons to prove it of either 6. If â—aith be more aptly and fitly as you speak called an instrument then it is a properer speech to â—ay Faith or mâ—n by faith forgiveth sins then that The Covenant-grant or Condonation or act of pardon doth forgive them Seâ— Absit 7. When you have well proved that repeated dangerous assertion That faith gives efficacy as an instrument to the Word you may next take
the word Righteousness materially without relation to any Rule is as much as to say We may denominate a materia sine forma The form is relative If you mean We may denominate that which hath a form from the matter and not from the form then I Reply 1. Then you must not denominate properly and logically 2. And then you must not call it Righteousness except you mean ludere aequivocis and speak de Justitia particulari ethica qua suum cuique tribuimus when we are speaking de Justitia Legali Civili Forensi called by the Schoolmen Justitia universalis in our case I am not of the Papists minde that make our Righteousness to be our new qualities and confound Justitiam Sanctitatem inde Justificationem Sanctificationem §. 31. Mr Bl. ANd in such consideration I do not know how there can be perfection or imperfection either in holiness or righteousness It is as they come up to or fall short of the Rule that they have the denomination of perfection or imperfection §. 31. R.B. 1. AT the first view the first sentence seemed so strange to me that I thought it meetest to say nothing because it is scarce capable of any apt answer but what will seem sharp or unmannerly For that which you say you may consider is something or nothing If something and yet not capable of perfection or imperfection it is such a something as the world never knew till now But upon second thoughts I finde that de justitia your words may be born For it is nothing that you speak of Legal Righteousness not related to the Law or Rule is Nothing And Nothing cannot be more perfect or less nisi negativè But that holiness taken for spiritual habits and acts can have neither perfection or imperfection or that they are capable of no perfection or imperfection in any other sense but as related nor yet in any Relations to God or the person dedicating save only in the relation to the Rule all these for the first reason shall have no answer but a recital §. 32. Mr Bl. PAul's Gospel frame whether you will call it righteousness or holiness is set out I am sure Rom. 7. full of imperfection yet all this as in reference to the Rule as is answered or fell short in conformity to it vers 22. I delight in the Law of God after the inner man §. 32. R. B. 1. IS not Righteousness or Holiness as Scriptural as Logical as plain a term and as fit for Disputants as Gospel-frame Till I know whether by Gospel-frame you mean Habits Acts Relations and what Relations or what else I shall pass it as uncapable of a better Reply 2. Did not I acknowledge expresly as much imperfection as you here affirm of Paul â—s frame Why then do you intimate by your arguing as if I did not 3. There is a twofold Rule or action of the Law which our Habits and Actions do respect as I have oft said The first is the Precept determining of Duty simply This all our Actions and Habits come short of and therefore no man hath a Righteousness consisting in this conformity The second is the promise or that act going along with the promise whereby God determineth of the condition This is twofold One of the Law of Nature and Works and according to this no man is Righteous for the condition and the duty are of the same extent it being obedience gradually perfect that is here the condition The other is of the Law of Grace which determineth what shall be the condition of our Right to Christ and Life Paul never complaineth of an imperfection of Essence of this last It is of the former that he speaks These necessary things should not be hidden by confounding the several Rules or Offices of Gods Law which so apparently differ §. 33. Mr Bl. ANd whereas a charge of ignorance is laid even upon learned Teachers that commonly understand the word Righteousness and Righteous as it refers to the old Rule I profess my self to have little of their Learning but I am wholly theirs in this ignorance I know no other Rule but the old Rule the Rule of the Moral Law that iâ— with me a Rule a perfect Rule and the only Rule §. 33. R B. EIther I am an incompetent judge through partiality or else you had done but the part of a friend yea of a candid adversary to have taken in the rest of my words which must make up the sense which were these As if the godly were called Righteous besides their imputed righteousness only because their sanctification and good works have some imperfect agreement to the Law of works I pray let the word only be remembred 2. It is but in this one point that I charge them with Ignorance And who is not ignorant in more points then one If it be so proud and arrogant a speech as some other Brethren have affirmed it to be then every man is proud and arrogant that differs from another and disputeth the difference For I cannot differ from any man unless I suppose him to Erre And doubtless every man is so farre Ignorant as he Erreth Must I then differ from none yea from no Learned Divines Why then when one affirmeth and another denieth I must be of both sides for fear of censuring one side as Ignorant or Erroneous 3. I confess I was not well acquainted with the genius of many of my Reverend and truly Honoured Brethren I thought that no godly man would have taken himself wronged if a man told him he had Error no more then to tell him he had sin I took it for granted that humanum est errare and that we know but in part and that sanctifying grace had so farre destroyed pride and made the soul apprehensive of its imperfection that at least men of eminent godliness could have endured patiently to hear that they are not omniscient nor infallible and that they have some ignorance with their eminent knowledge and why not in this point as well as another If any think that I arrogate that knowledge to my self which I deny to them I reply So I do in every case wherein I differ from any man living For if I thought not my judgement right it were not indeed my judgement and if I thought not his opinion wrong I did not differ from him But if they will affirm that therefore I do either vilifie them or prefer my self in other things I hope they will bring better proof of their affirmation For my own part I unfeignedly profess my self conscious of much more ignorance then ever I charged on any of my Brethren in the Ministry yea I must profess my self ignorant in a very great part of those Controversies which are most commonly and confidently determined by my Brethren I speak not all this as to Mr Bl. but to other Brethren that have made so strange an exposition of this one word and of one more
of a Christian which they assumed Pag. 192. he saith All professed Christians so called are in an outward and single Covenant 1. What those that are called professed Christians and are not No sure that 's not the meaning else mens miscalling might put them in Covenant It is then those that are so and are called so But will it not serve if they are so unless called so 2. He means either those that profess the name of Christianity or the Thing Of the insufficiency of the first I spoke before For the second if they profess the whole Essence of Christianity undissembledly I think they are truly Regenerate If they profess but part as to the Matter both of Assent and Consent of which I spoke before in the Conclusions and which we have in this County lately set down in our Profession of Faith then it is not Christianity which they profess for part of the essence is not the Thing where an essential part is wanting the form is absent If it be the whole matter of Christianity that is professed but Dissembledly then as he is equivocally or analogically a Believer or Christian so I yield he is a member of the Visible Church which so far as it is only Visible is equivocally called The Church of which I have fullier spoken in Answer to Mr Tombes Praecursor I know Mr Bl. thinks that there may be an undissembled Profession which yet may not be of a saving Faith But then I yet conceive it is not an entire Profession of the whole essential object of Christian faith viz. of Assent and Consent It will be a hard saying to many honest Christians to say that a man not justified may believe every fundamental Article and withall truly profess Repentance of all his sins and to Take God for his Soveraign to Rule him and his chief Good to be enjoyed to his happiness and to take Christ for his Lord and only Saviour and his Word for his Law and Rule and the holy Ghost for his Guide and Sanctifier and the rest which is essential to Christianity Pag. 192. He saith of all that externally make Profession These engage themselves upon Gods terms But if they do so sincerely they are sincere Christians If not sincerely they are but equivocally Christians Some think that in the 11th Chapter of the 3d part of my Book of Rest I gave too much to an unregenerate estate and yet I think there is nothing contrary to this that I now say He that professeth not to preferre God and the Redeemer before all other things professeth not Christianity and he that professeth this and lieth not is a Regenerate justified Christian Pag. 200. he describeth his unregenerate Christians to be such as Accept the terms of the Covenant And this none doth indeed but the sanctified If Mr. Bl. will say that the unregenerate may do it he will make them true believers For what is true faith but an Accepting of Christ and his Benefits on the Covenant terms Though I confess others may falsly say they Accept him Pag. 220. he saith Laws tendred by a Prince and received by a People make up the Relation of King and people yet indeed that 's not true for it is the Receiving the man to be our King which is antecedent to the receiving his Laws that makes the Relation A marriage Covenant tendred by a man and accepted by a Virgin makes up the Relation of Husband and Wife Covenant draughts between man and man for service make up the Relation of Master and Servant Now the Gospel Covenant is all of these between God and a People Rep. The Accepting Christ in this Covenant is true Justifying Faith If an unregenerate man have this indeed then he is justified and Faith and Justification are common things which I will not believe If Mr. Bl. mean that the external profession of this Acceptance alone doth make up the Relation I say as before It may oblige the Professour but makes not up the Relation of Real Christians because God conseâ—teth not nor is actually in Covenant and obliged The differences Mr. Bl. must take notice of between his humane Covenants and ours with God or else he will marre all Men know not one anothers hearts and therefore make not Laws for hearts nor impose Conditions on hearts and therefore if both parties do profess Consent though dissemblingly they are both obliged and the Covenant is mutual But God offers to Consent only on Condition that our hearts Consent to his terms and therefore if we profess Consent and do not Consent God Consenteth not nor is as it were obliged Next Mr. Bl. proceeds there to tell us that the Accepting the Word preached is the note of the Church But that is a more lax ambiguous term then the former Some call it an accepting the Word when they are content to hear it Some when they speculatively believe the truth of it These are no true notes of true Christians or Churches in the first sense of the word Church Others Accept but part of that word which is the necessary object of Faith of whom the like may he said It is the Accepting Christ and Life in him offered by this word which is Christianity it self or true Faith and the profession of this is that which makes a man a Member of the Visible Church He may accept it for his Infants also So much for the indagation of Mr. Bl's meaning about the description of his visible Christians Next what he means by Covenant I confess I despair of knowing Sometime he speaks as if he meant it but of their own act of Covenant whereby they oblige themselves But ordinarily it is evident that he speaks of a mutual Covenant â—nd makes God to be also in Covenant with them But what Covenant of God is tâ—is Pag. 192. He saith they are in an outward and single Covenant But what he means by a single Covenant I know not He there also chooseth to express himself in Paraeus words who distinguisheth inter beneficia foederis which he denieth them and Jus foederis which he alloweth them But I confess I know not what Jus foederis is except one of these two things 1. A Right to enter Covenant with Christ and so have Infidels 2. Or a Right to the Benefits promised in the Covenant and this he denieth them If he meaneth as Parâ—eus seems a Right to be esteemed as Covenanters and used as Covenanters by the Church though indeed God is not in Covenant with them this we easily grant But Mr. Bl's common phrase is that they are in the outward Covenant and what that is I cannot tell I know what it is to covenant ore tenus only outwardly or by a dissembled profession or else a profession maimed or not understood and I have said that hereby they may further oblige themselves so far as the creature can be said to oblige it self who is not sui Juris but wholly Gods and is under his
so others commonly must profess belief before they must be Baptized and the Scripture gives no hint that this is one kinde of Faith and that another Mar. 1.4 shews first in General what John did in the wilderness viz. Baptize and 2. in what order he did it viz. first preaching that Baptism of Repentance to them That 2 Pet. 1.3 is spoken in perfect Logical order It speaks not of Christs order of Execution and our order of Assecution but of Gods and our order of Intention If it had been said that he giveth us glory and vertue it had been a Hysteron Proteron but it is only he called us to glory and vertue And of ends the Ultimate is the first in Intention and all ends are so before their means and therefore may well be so in expression 2. I think as Baptism is truly Medium ad salutem so it may be said to be necessary necessitate medii as well as necessitate praecepti only with a distinction of necessitie according to its Degrees Faith is absolutely necessarie as sine qua non and Baptism is of an inferior less necessitie sometime but ad bene esse solemnitatem Lastly the command foregoing Disciple me all Nations Baptizing them setteth Faith in present or persons at age themselves before Baptism as included in Discipling And if this text which contains the Commission put not Faith before Baptism it s like others do not and then why may noâ— any Hâ—athens that will be baptized and the text speaks but of one faith for ought I can finde §. 48. Mr. Bl. 2. LEt Peter where he speaks of salvation by baptism interpret these words Baptism doth now also saith he save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 3.21 and then explains himself Not the putting away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience towards God this answer or restipulation to the outward administration of Baptism is that which follows upon Baptism but Justifying Faith is that restipulation at least a principal branch of it and therefore there is no necessitie that it go before but a necessitie that it must follow after baptism It is true that in men of years Justifying saith sometimes goes before baptism as in Abraham it went before Circumcision but it is not of necsesity required to Interest us in a Right neither of Baptism nor Circumcision §. 48. R. B. I Will not now stand to enquire of the fitness or unfitness of your term Restipulation as here used Varro useth Restipulari as being the same act as stipulari and Civilians use it but rarely In every stipulation they make two parties the Stipulator which is he that asks the question and the Promiser which is the answerer that obligeth himself Though rarely and unusually also the Promiser be called Stipulator But I suppose it is Responsio Promissoris that you mean by Restipulation and not another Interogation whereby a double stipulation is made supposing this your meaning I Reply 1. Why did you not give us one word for proof that this Restipulation is a thing following Baptism This is too dilute and easie disputing I took the contrary for an unquestionable truth The best Interpreters judge that Peter means here the Answer whereby the Promiser in Baptism did solemnly oblige himself which was to two Questions Credis in Patrem filium spiritum sanctum Credo Abrenuncias Diabolum mundum Carnem Abrenuncio And who knoweth not that these went before the application of the water of which more anon Doth not mutual consent expressed go before the sealing of the Covenant Doth Christ bid us Baptize men into the name of the Father Son and Holy-Ghost and would you have us do this before they profess their consent shall we Baptize them first and ask them whether they believe and consent after 2. I gratefully accept your Concession that Justifying Faith is that Restipulation Which is your minor that is Justifying Faith professed And thence I conclude that then Justifying faith is Essential to the mutual Covenant and so without it God is not thus in Covenant with men For who knows not that ever read Civil Law that there is no stipulation sine Promissione which you call and so do other Divines Restipulation and that this Restipulation is an essential part of the contract called stipulation This being past doubt it follows that Justifying Faith being our Restipulation is an Essential part of the contract or Baptismal Covenant And it is apparant that Peter meant not any other contract which was to be entered between God and man after the Baptismal Contract and different from it for then he would not have said Baptism saveth us and have interpreted it de fidâ responsione vel promissione non de nudâ lotione 3. The Concession which you were forced to about men of years how it doth cut the throat of your cause I shall shew you anon §. 49. Mr. Bl. OBj. 3. That faith to which the promise of Remission and Justification is made it must also be sealed to or that faith which is the condition of the Promise is the condition in foro Dei of the Title to the Seal But it is only solid true faith which is the Condition of the Promise of Remission Therefore it is that only that gives Right in foro Dei to the Seal Answ Here is an argument first proposed 2. in a parenthesis paraphrased For the proposition I say Faith is not sealed to but Remission of sins or salvation upon condition of Faith A professor of Faith that goes no further may engage himself to a lively working Faith and upon those terms God engages for and puts his Seal for Remission and salvation For the parenthesis That faith which is the condition of the Promise is the condition in foro Dei of Title to that Seal I judge the contrary to be undeniable that Faith which is the condition of the Promise is not the condition in foro Dei of Title to the Seal An acknowledgment of the Necessity of such faith with engagement to it is sufficient for a Title to the Seal and the performance of the condition of like necessity to attain the thing sealed To promise service and fidelitie in war is enough to get listed as to do service is of necessity to be rewarded §. 49. R. B. 1. BOth Sacraments rightly used are a mutual Sealing to the mutual Covenant As in the Lords Supper Taking and eating is our Sealing professing action so in Baptism receiving the water applied is our Seal and professing Passion For we are more Passive in our new birth then in our feeding for growth So is the presenting our persons or our children of our delivering them up to Christ as his Disciples It is therefore our part as well as Gods that is Sealed to 2. Where you say A professor of Faith may engage to a lively working Faith you mean either a Professor of that lively faith or a
is as it were engaged to man in the Covenant of Grace and that it is dangerous to make God to be in actual Covenant with men in the state of nature though the conditional covenant may be made to them and though he have revealed his decree for the sanctifying his elect but he is supposed to dispence his mercies to the unregenerate freely as Dominus absolutus or as Rector supra leges and not by giving them a Legal or Covenant-right And indeed in my opinion the Transition is very easie from Mr. Blakes opinion to Arminianism if not unavoidable save by a retreat or by not seeing the connexion of the Consequents to the Antecedent For grant once that common Faith doth coram Deo give right to baptism and it is very easie to prove that it gives right to the end of baptism God having not instituted it to be an emptie sign to those that have true Right to it And it will be no hard matter to prove that it is some special Grace that is the end of Baptism at lest Remission of sin And so upon the good use of common Grace God should be in Covenant obliged to give them special Grace which is taken for Pelagianism §. 53. WHen I had Replyed thus far to Mr. Blake I was much moved in my minde to have Replyed to his answer to Mr. Firmin on the like subject and also to have then proved that the children have no Right to baptism except the immediate Parent be a believer for the sake of any of his Ancestors and that the children of Apostates and wilfull obstinate wicked livers should not be baptized as theirs and to have answered what Mr. Bl. hath said to the contrary and this meerly in love to the Truth lest the reputation of man should cloud it and in love to the Church and the lustre of the Christian name lest this fearful gap should let in that pollution that may make Christianitie seem no better then the other Religions of the world For I fear this loose Doctrine of Baptism will do more 〈◊〉 the pollution of the Church then others loose Doctrine of the Lords Supper or as much But I am very loth to go any further in Controversie then I shall be necessitated And if Mr. Firmin be living I conjecture by his writings that he is able easily to vindicate his own words Not that I have low thoughts of the abilities and worth of my dear and Reverend friend Mr. Blake but that I take his answers on those subjects to be very dilute si pace tanti viri ita dicam so great a disadvantage is an ill cause to the most learned man Mr. Firmin I know not any further then by his Book against Separation But in that Book I see so much Candor Ingenuitie Moderation Love to Peace and some convenient terms for Peace discovered that I am heartily sorrie that there are no more to second him and that his incitements to accommodation are no more laid to heart But the Peace-makers shall be blessed in the Kingdom of Peace how little soever they may succeed in this tumultuous world For as where envy and strife is contentious zeal there is confusion and every evil work so the fruit of Righteousness is sown in Peace of them that make Peace § 54. I Had thought also at the first view that it would have been necessary to have confuted Mr. Blakes 31. Chapt. when I found this Title A man in Covenant with God and received into the Vniversal Church Visible needs no more to give him accesss to and interest in particular Visible Churches But I know not whether he mean the access and interest of a stranger in passage or a Transient Member or of a fixed Member If of the latter I should have proved moreover that there is Necessary both his Cohabitation and his Consent to be a Member of that Church and his consent to submit to the particular Pastors of that Church as his Teachers and Spiritual Guides in the Lord. But I finde in the following pages Mr. Blake doth acknowledge all this himself I shall therefore pass on to some other subject only remembering Mr. Bl. that as it is not Number of Arguments but Weight that will carrie the Cause so it is not Number that I trust to and therefore if any one of those 26 Arguments foregoing be good though 25 be bad I must needs think the Cause bad which I argue against §. 55. Whether Faith and Repentance be Gods Works Mr Bl. CHap. 15. So Mr. Baxters Questionist qu. How do you make Faith and Repentance to be Conditions of the Covenant on our part seeing the bestowing of them is part of the condition on Gods part Can they be our Conditions and Gods too Answer c. And I shall not stand to distinguish of an Absolute and Conditional Covenant and so making the whole in the Absolute Covenant to be Gods and in the Conditional this part to be ours which I know not whether exactly understood the Scripture will bear but in plain term◠deny that they are Gods Conditions and affirm them to be ours I know what God speaks in his Word concerning these works that He will write his Law in our hearts and put it into our inward parts that he will take away the heart of stone and give an heart of flesh which implyes this work of which we speak I know likewise what in particular is affirmed of Christ that he is the Author and Finisher of our Faith c. Yet all this rises not up higher to make them formally Gods acts and not ours Whose acts they be his Conditions they are this is evident But they are our acts we Believe and Repent it is not God that Believes it is not God that Repents c. Faith and Repentance are mans works not Gods works which man in Covenant does respective to salvation in the Covenant tendered But the Apostle some may say in the next words tells us That it is God that works the Will and the Deed. There he seems to take them from us and ascribes the formality of them to God In this Cooperation of Gods whether they be formally our works or Gods let Isaiah determine Isa 26.12 Thou hast wrought all our works in us When God hath wrought it the work is ours we have the reward c. § 55 R. B. MR Blakes business here is to confute the answer that I gave to that objection A brief Reply may easily satisfie this confutation 1. I did explain in what sense these were called Covenants shewing that that which is called the Absolute Covenant is in some respect no part of Gods Legislative Will and so doth not jus conferre but only part of his Decretive Will revealed but that in other respects it belongs to the Legislative Will and may be called an absolute promise And so the word Conditions applyed to God is taken for the thing promised improperly called a condition but applied
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
my wit If it had been said The Covenant commandeth perfection and not sincerity Or The Covenant Accepteth sincerity but not Commandeth it there had been some reason for this charge But do you think that sincerity is no part of Perfection Can the Covenant require perfection and not require sincerity when sincerity is contained in perfection If you take sincerity exclusivè only as excluding perfection and not at all formaliter then it s true that it is not commanded nor is a duty but a failing For I hope the Gospel doth not command Imperfection but tender us a Remedy for it You might with more colour have argued that then Repentance is no Duty because inconsistent with commanded perfection But that will not hold neither For they suppose Repentance commanded by the same Law in case and upon certain supposal of Imperfection or sin §. 90. Mr. Bl. ANd therefore I conclude that as in the Law there was pure Justice as well in the command Given as punishment threatned without any condescension or indulgence So in the Covenant there is mercy and condescension as well in the Condition required as in the Penalty that is annexed to it The Covenant requires no more then it accepts §. 90. R. B. ALL this will be easily granted you by those of the contrary part as nothing to the purpose It follows not that because there is condescension in the Condition that therefore there is such an abatement in the Precept or that the Covenant hath no Precept but de praestanda Conditione 2. It were strange if the Covenant should require more then it accepts Did ever sober man much less such as your Reverend adversaries imagine a thing so Impious as if God would not Accept that which himself commandeth But if you would have said as your arguing requires that the Covenant accepteth no less then the whole which it commandeth or requireth then not only your Antagonists but my self and many another will deny it and demand your proof But here I take this as granted by you that you take not the word Covenant at least so restrainedly as excluding all Precept for I suppose you mean Commanding in the terms requiring and calling for as duty §. 91. Mr. Bl. THe alone Argument so far as ever I could learn that hath brought some of Reverend esteem into this opinion is That if the Covenant requires not exact perfection in the same height as the Law calls for it then a Christian may fall short of the Law in his Obedience and not sin perfection being not called for from him nor any more called for from him then through Grace he doth perform he rises as high as his Rulâ— and sins not through any Imperfection therefore to make it out that a Believers Imperfections are his sins it must needs be that the Covenant requires perfection as to make good that he may be saved in his Imperfections it must be maintained that he accepts sincerity But this Argument is not of weight Christ entring a Gospel-Covenant with man findes him under the command of the Law which command the Law still holds the Gospel being a confirmation not a destruction of it All Imperfection thâ—n is a sin upon that account that it is a Transgression of the Law though being done against heart and labored against it is no breach of Covenant wee are under the Law as men we are taken into Covenant as Christians retaining the humane nature the Law still commands as though the covenant in Christ through the abundant Grace of it upon the terms that it requires and accepts frees us from the sentence of it §. 91. R. B. 1. I Was at first doubtful lest by the Law you had meant as the Lutherans a Law of God in general as opposed to the Gospel as being no Law and that you had meant by the Law only the Moral Precepts which is but the matter of the Law of Nature or of Works or of the Law of Grace in some respect But I perceive that you mean the entire Law both Precept and Sanction by your mentioning the Sentence of it If therefore you do by the Law mean but one Species viz. the Law of Nature acknowledging the new Law of Grace commonly called the New Covenant from the Promise which is the most eminent part to be a Law too then I agree with you in this solution as to the matter of Perfection or else not And yet I dare not hold that the New Law commandeth no more then its Condition But for them that use the word Covenant for nothing but the bare Promise I must tell them that it is but a piece of Gods Law or Instrument separated from the body which they fasten a Name upon and if they will signifie so much that it is but part of the Redeemers Law of Grace which they call a Covenant and will give another name to the whole that so we may understand them I would not willingly quarrel with them about words But if it be the thing as well as the name that they err in affirming that the Gospel is a meer Promise and that God hath no Law but one and that one the Law of Works or else that all his Precepts Natural and Positive are one Law by themselves as distinct from the Sanctions when Precepts are but part of Gods Laws which by their Sanctions are specified and distinguished as most think into two sorts of Nature and of Grace but as Camero thinks into three sorts of Nature of Jewish works of Grace then I not only profess my dissent but do esteem the former error very dangerous and intolerable and the later such as tendeth to great confusion in the body of Theologie 2. This very Argument which you recite and answer doth undenyably prove that the Divines whom you oppose do by the Covenant of Grace understand all the Law that is now in force under the Government of the Redeemer Otherwise they would never imagine that there is no sin but what is against the Covenant of Grace and that there is no other Rule but this Covenant for a Christians obedience It is therefore out of doubt that this difference is but about words or little more they taking that Covenant of Grace in a larger sense then you and I think meet to take it If you should reply that it is an unreasonable thing of them to take it so largely I say that I do not think meet to imitate them in it but I could shew you so much said that way by the forementioned Reverend Learned man your friend and mine as would convince you that they have more to say for what they do then every one that is against them is able to answer §. 92. The Conclusion HAving thus taken the boldness to examine your Exceptions and deliver my Reasons against some of your opinions I do crave your favorable acceptance of what I have done and your friendly interpretation or remission of any