with those whose Title is just 5. I know not what Chapter it is that you refer us to for more 6. Having lent Mr. Hudsons book out I have it not now by me and therefore cannot consult him but I suppose you would use the Arguments which you thought strongest §. 46. Mr. Bl. HEre it is objected 1. When Christ saith Make me Disciples of all Nations baptizing them he meant sincere Disciples though we cannot ever know them to be sincere I Answer In Case I make this first Objection brought against me my seventh and last Argument for me it will fully discover the weakness of it and thus I form it All that are Disciples unto Christ and made Disciples for Christ are to be baptized But some are made Disciples to Christ that are short of Faith saving and justifying as hath been proved at large This Discipleship that Christ here mentions is such of which whole Nations are in capacity as is plain in the Commission to which this Nation with others hath happily attained according to the manifold Prophesies before cited Of these the whole Vniversal visible Church consisteth so irrefragably proved by Mr. Hudson in his Treatise of that subject and his Vindication Now if whole Nations yea the whole Vniversal Visible Church consisting of discipled Nations were all Believers it were a great happiness the Election would be as large as Vocation when Christ saith Many are called but few chosen §. 46. R.B. 1. TO vindicate my Objections If it be not sincere Disciples that Christ means in that Text then no Apostle was bound by that Commission and great Precept to endeavour the making of sincere Disciples but only counterfeits and half Christians But the Antecedent is false therefore c. 2. For your Argument I grant the Conclusion and what would you have more But knew you not that it is not the thing in Question 3. I grant the Minor taking the word Disciples equivocally as a Corps is called a man and I confess it usual so to take the word but otherwise I deny the Minor To be Christs Disciple as to the aged is to be one that hath unfeignedly taken Christ for his Master to Teach him and Rule him renouncing the contrary guidance of the Flesh the World and Devil and it implyeth that he hath already learnt his necessity of Christs Guidance and who Christ is and what a Master to what End it is that we must learn of him and what are the great conditions on which he receiveth his Disciples And I think they that do this sincerely are justified and they that do not are but seeming Disciples but if you will call such Disciples as we must because they seem so then you may say They are Really such seeming Disciples 4. To your confirmation I deny the Minor and I say that it is so new Doctrine to affirm that whole Nations are not capable of being sound Believers that it deserved one word of proof Much less should you have hid your Minor and turned it into à Negatio existentiae when it should have been but à Negatio Capacitatis Doth it follow that a Nation is not capable of sound faith because they have it not or will not have it 5. Do you think Preachers yet be not bound to endeavour the saâ—ing Conversion of whole Nations If you say No you take them off the work that their master hath set them on If you say Yea then you think they must endeavor to perswade men to that which they have not a capacity of 6. If there be any Nation uncapable of Faith then God cannot make them Believers But that is not true therefore c. 7. You say not well that the whole Universal Visible Church consisteth of Discipled Nations if you mean only as you seem For then poor scattered Christians in a Heathen Nation should be no part of the Universal Visible Church 8. Vocation uneffectual is common to Pagans Vocation throughly effectual is of the same extent as justification and I think Election Vocation which is effectual only to bring men to an outward Profession of saving Faith is larger then Election and makes men such whom we are bound to Baptize §. 47. Mr. Bl. OBject 2. When he saith He that Believeth and is baptized shall be saved here Faith goes before Baptism and that not a common but a saving Faith for here is but one Faith spoken of and that is before Baptism Answ 1. This is the weakest of all Arguments to reason for a precedency of one before another from the order in which they are placed in Scripture So we may say John Baptized before he preached the Baptism of repentance for his baptizing is mentioned before preaching of Baptism Mar. 1.4 So we may say We must have glory first and Vertue after for so they are placed by the Apostle 2 Pet. 1.3 All that can be collected is that we must in Gods ordinary way of conferring salvation have both Faith and Baptism though there be not the like absolute necessity of Baptism as of Faith Baptism being necessary necessitate praecepti Jesus Christ having Instituted and commanded it but Faith necessary both necessitate medii praecepti seeing Christ not onely commanded it but salvation can at no hand be obtained by men in capaicty of it without it And it hath been well observed that in the words following the like stress is not laid on Baptism as on Faith not he that is not baptized but he that believeth not shall be damned §. 47. R. B. IF affirmations be good proof of the weakness of Arguments then this is sufficiently confuted But to the rest 1. I confess there may be a Hysteron Proteron in the Scripture and in such a case we may not gather the reall precedency of that which is first named But otherwise I know not whence we should better gather the natural order then from Scripture order in expression If I may by the order of your speeches gather the order of things in your conception and intentions then may I observe the Holy Ghosts order also to the like ends for I suppose you speak not more orderly then the Holy Ghost But I may sure to that end observe the order of your expressions therefore Moreover this is not one Text going against the order expressed in most others but contrarily the same order is usually observed in other Texts that speak of Faith and Baptism putting Faith first Furthermore this is not a meer Historical Narration or circumstantial by-passage but it is the very sum of the Law of Grace solemnly delivered by Christ to his Apostles with their grand Commission before his Ascention and where may we expect if not here where in so few words is expressed the substance of the Covenant Moreover it is not doctrinally and in general precepts onely that this order is held but in particular precepts directing in present matter of execution The Eunuch must Believe with all his heart and
far as we have any History to guide us Tertullian Cyprian and all Antiquity uno ore that write of these things put that past question And I dare not think that Christs Church hath ever required that as necessary in Baptism which was not requisite till afterward And if Mr. Bl. say that they did but promise for the future not to follow the World Flesh and Devil before Christ I Reply They renounced them at present and thereby shewed the present conversion and Resolution of their hearts that it was afterward that this was to be manifested in action Argu. 5. They that are required to believe sincerely in the Father Son and Holy-Ghost are required to believe to Justification But such are all that come to baptism Therefore For the major it requires no more proof but to explain what it is to believe in the Father Son and Holy-Ghost And our Divines against the Papists have enough proved that the phrase of Believing in comprehendeth the act of the will as well as of the understanding To believe in God is to take him for our God to take him for our God is to take him for our Soveraign Ruler and Chief good This none but a sound believer can truly do Mr. Bl. confesseth elswhere that â—his is the summe of the Covenant to take God for our God give up our selves to be his people For the Minor They that are to be baptized into the name of the Father Son and Holy-Ghost are to believe in the Father Son and Holy-Ghost But all that are baptized are to be baptized into the name of the Father Son and Holy-Ghost therefore Were it necessary many Texts might be cited that prove it is not only Assent but a believing in Christ that is requisite The very Creed shews it which hath Credo in Deum c. which Creed for the main Articles of it the Church hath ever required all to profess that would be baptized before the application of the water And then that this is required to be done sincerely needs no proof with them that will not believe that God commands or loves dissembling So that I conclude This sincere Faith is required in and before baptism and not only to be promised that we will perform it hereafter Argu. 6. They that are required to repent sincerely are required to believe to justification at the same time But all that come to baptism at age are required to repent sincerely therefore The major is evident 1. In that sincere Repentance and true Faith are inseparable 2. In that Remission is promised to all that truly Repent as well as to them that believe The Minor is proved from several plain Scriptures Act. 2.38 Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of sins And it was no half or common Repentance that he calls them to for Remission of sins was to be its Consequent If Mr. Bl. say here also That it is the weakest of all Arguments to argue from the order expressed in Scripture I shall say I will not believe him because I suppose Scripture in such Practical directions speaks not more confusedly or preposterously then he or I would do Act. 11.18 It is called Repentance unto life which the Gentils had before and in their Baptism yea they had first the Holy-Ghost Act. 10.47 And Heb. 6.1 Repentance from dead works is a Principle Paul the Jaylor and all that we read of that were Baptized did repent or seemed so to do and were required to do it before Baptism If Mr. Bl. sâ—y It is a Repentance short of that which is saving that is here required I would he would describe it to us and tell us wherein it is short 1. Objectively I hope he will not deny but it is every sin that men should repent of 2. Subjectively it is doubtless sincere and not counterfeit that is required I conclude therefore that seeing saving Repentance is prerequisite to Baptism by Gods appointment and not only to be promised to be afterward performed we must say the same of saving Faith Argu. 7. If saving Grace be not required in Christs Baptism then it requireth less then Johns Baptism did But the Consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent The Consequence of the major is all that requires proof Which I prove from many Texts Mat. 3.2.6 8. He first preacheth Repentance and causeth them to confess their sins and reprehendeth the Pharises that came in Hypocrisie or with unsound Repentance And it was true Repentance for Remission of sins was annext Mar. 1.4 And it may not only be required after Baptism but before and it is called the Baptism of Repentance because in it they professed Repentance So Act. 13.24 and 19.4 Argu. 8. If Faith-Justifying be required before Remission of sin then is it required of God before we come to Baptism or in us before we bring our Infants But such Faith is prerequisite to Remission of sin therefore The consequence is proved thus Remission is the end and immediate consequent of Baptism where men come as God hath required them Therefore if sincere Faith be prerequisite to Remission it is prerequisite also to right to Baptism I prove the Antecedent Act. 22.16 Ananias saith to Paul Why tarryest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins This was a present Remission and not a future only So Act. 2.38 Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of sins And it is a Faith which hath the Promise of Remission which Peter requires of the Gentils before he baptize them Act. 10.43 Act. 13.39 the Apostle tells them All that belive are Justified when he is perswading them to believe It is therefore a believing to Justification which he was perswading them to Rom. 6.3 4. Know ye not that as many as were Baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death therefore we are buryed with him â—y baptism into death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead c. It is therefore in the act of Baptism that we are buried and rise Sacramentally to signifie the present change of our state from the Grave of sin So Col. 2.11 12 13. and 1 Pet. 3.21 Baptism is said to save us but not the external washing without the answer of a good conscience which affordeth two arguments One in that Baptism saveth and therefore leaves not man when rightly used a childe of wrath afterward 2. In that the Answer of a good conscience is required to concurr with Baptism for so the Apostle plainly intimates and the best Expositors understand it and not of a thing to follow as Mr. Bl. doth Eph. 5.25 26. Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word Wherefore Paul supposeth them cleansed that are Baptized 1 Cor. 6.11 Such were some of you but ye are washed but ye are sanctified
the other of sense and knowledge yea that it will hold in matters of Faith both fundamental and superstructive §. 74. R. B. 1. IT was not this according to your limitations that was said to be a gross mistake but as applyed to ordinary Believers though my reasons make against both 2. You deal more easily to your self then fairly with me in your entred Dissent 1. I said meerly Credenda as confessing it is partly of Faith and partly of knowledge as the Premises are and you leave out meerly and put in Crendenda alone as if I denyed it to participate of Faith 2. I denyed it therefore to be a proper object of Faith that is a meer Credendum or Divine Testimony acknowledging that it may be participative and partially and less properly called an Object of Faith and you leave out properly and only affirm it an Object of Faith of what sort soever in general 3. I have answered this sufficiently in telling you my opinion i. e. The Conclusion still partakes of the nature of both Premises and therefore when one is de fide and the other naturaliter revelatum vel cognitum there the Conclusion is not purely either supernatural or natural de fide or ex cognitione naturali but mixt of both That it s truly a Conclusion following those Premises is known only by Rational discourse and is not de fide but that it is a true Proposition is known partly naturally partly by supernatural Revelation which is that we mean when we say it is de fide But because it is fittest in our common speech to give this Conclusion a simple and not a compound Denomination for brevitie sake therefore we may well denominate it from one of the Propositions and that must alwaies be a parte debiliore And therefore when it is principia naturaliter nota that make one proposition or sensible things or what ever that is more evident then the truth of the Proposition which is of Divine Testimony there it is fittest to say The Conclusion is de fide or of supernatural Revelation As when the one Proposition is that there is a God or I am a man or God is Great or Good or True But when the other Proposition is less evident then that which is of Divine Revelation then it is fittest to say that the Conclusion is such as that Proposition is and not properly de fide For the Conclusion being the joynt issue of both Premises as its parents or true Causes it cannot be more noble then the more ignoble of them This explication of my opinion is it that I referr you to as the substance of my answer to all that follows §. 75. Mr. Bl. WHen Fisher the Jesuite told Dr. Featley that it was solid Divinity that a Conclusion de fide must necessarily by inferred out of two Propositions de fide Dr. Goad being present as Dr. Featleys Assistant interposed in these words I will maintain the contrary against you or any other That a Conclusion may be de fide although both Propositions be not de fide but one of them otherwise evidently and infallibly true by the light of Reason or experience giving instance in this Conclusion Christus est risibilis which he said and truly was de fide though both Propositions whence it is inferred be not de fide Omnis homo est risibilis is not a Proposition de fide or supernaturally revealed in Scripture yet thence the Conclusion follows in this Syllogism Omnis homoest risibilis Christus est homo therefore Christus est râ—sibilis which is a Conclusion de fide affirming that Melchior Canus had judiciously handled and proved this tenent which he said he could otherwise demonstrate to be infallible To whom Dr. Featley assents second Daies dispute pag. 85. It were casie to frame many such Syllogisms If an Heretick should affirm that Christ had only a phantastick body in appearance only how would you prove the contrary but with this Syllogism He that is truly man hath a true body and not a phantastick body only This is a Position in reason Christ is truly a man this is a Position de fide in Scripture whence follows the Conclusion de fide that Christ hath not a phantastick body If one should deny that Christ had a reasonable soul affirming that his body was informed by the Dietie instead of a Soul must it not be thus proved Every true man hath a reasonable Soul Christ is a true man and therefore Christ hath a reasonable Soul The Citie that ruleth over the Nations of the earth and is seated on seven hills is the seat of the Beast This is a Scripture Proposition But that Rome then ruled over the Nations of the Earth and was seated on 7 hills we know by History and Geography Whence the Conclusion follows that Rome is the seat of the Beast Abundance of these may be framed where the Proposition opposite to the Conclusion is either an Heresie or at least an error in Faith The Conclusion is of Faith Disputing against the Vbiquitarians and Transubstantiation to hold up the Orthodox Faith we are necessitated to make use of maximes of known reason If they were denyed us the new Crew now start up that deny all consequences from Scripture and will have none but Scripture words had here a notable advantage This Argument well followed would put Mr. Baxter himself to a great loss in some of his Arguments for which yet I give him thanks to prove that the Scripture is the word of God §. 75. R. B. THis is fully answered before even in my last Section 1. Dr. Goâ—d saith but the same that I say only I distinguish 1. Between that which is purely de fide and that which is only denominated de fide as the more debile of the Premises In the latter sense the Doctors conclusions are de fide in the former not 2. When a Conclusion is denyed to be de fide it may be meant either as a Diminution of its evidence or as magnifying its evidence above that which is purely de fide or as equaling it thereto When I say this Conclusion is not de fide A. B. is Justified and shall be saved I speak it by way of Diminution of its evidence and authority And I confidently speak it and doubt not to maintain it But when I deny this Conclusion to be simply or purely de fide I R. B. shall rise again I distinguish nothing of the evidence or necessity of it And when I thus argue Omne quod sentit ratiocinatur est Animal Ego R. B. sentio ratiocinor therefore ego sum Animal though I say that here the Conclusion is not de fide yet I intend thereby to extoll it for evidence above that which is de fide And when I affirm this Conclusion to be de fide I R. B. shall rise again as denominated à parte debiliore I do speak it in Diminution of its evidence in
But such is the Doctrine of Faith therefore I know some Divines to the no small wrong of the Christian Faith say None can really believe it but the Regenerate But the Jews believe the supernatural Revelations of the Old Testament and the Divels and many a thousand wicked men believe both old and new experience tells us so Christ tells us so that many believe who fall away in persecution James tells such men that they do well in believing but the Divel doth so too else men could not reject or persecute the known Truth To conclude it is commonly said that infused Habits infunduntur ad mâ—dum acquisitorum and therefore the habit of Faith in the Intellect must be caused by an Impress of evidence Though the Spirits supernatural act be moreover necessary yet that makes not other causes unnecessary Rada who concludes that Theologia nostra non est evidens gives but these two poor reasons and I should as soon look for strong ones from him as almost any man of his Religion or party 1. Principia Conclusionum nostrae Theologiae non sunt nobis Evidentia sed Condita therefore nec Conclusiones c. I deny the Antecedent which he proves nor Veracitas Divina est formale objectum fidei and that is evident so is the Revelation as is said 2. He saith Si conclusiones nostrae Theologiae essent Evidentes possemus convincere Infideles ut fidem nostram susciperent quia Evidentia convincit Intellectum I answer 1. The greatest Evidence supposeth other necessary concurrents for conviction as a Will to understand and divers other things which the wicked want As it is not for want of Evidence of present Objects but for want of good eyes that a blinde man seeth not so it is here 2. Many Infidels do Believe without special Grace though not so deeply and clearly as to prevail with their Wills for a through conversion yea the Divels themselves believe And whereas he adds Pauls words 2 Cor. 5. We walk by Faith not by sight it speaks not of Rational Evidence but of sensitive and that we confess is wanting Faith is the Evidence of things not seen Heb. 11.1 Were it not for digressing too far I would examine the 9. Quest Mater 14. de fide of Aquinas de Veritate and shew how ill he answers the nine Arguments which he undertakes to answer and how weak his own Arguments are for the proving that fides non potest esse de rebus scitis And I should shew that Faith is a kinde of Science or if we will distinguish it from Science it must not be so widely as is usual nor upon the reason that it wanteth Evidence But I suppose he that will impartially read Aquinas ubi sup will without any help see the weakness of his answers and how he seemed to stagger himself Yet let me add this caution or two 1. I do not mean that every man who hath true Faith doth discern the great and chiefest Evidence of the Truth of the Doctrine of Faith 2. Where there is the same Evidence in the thing there may be such different apprehensions of it through the diversity of Intellectual capacities and preparations as that one may have a firme Belief and certain and another but a probable opinion and another none at all 3. Though I take the Evidence of the Doctrine of Faith to be as full as I have mentioned yet not so obvious and easily discerned as sensitive evidence and therefore as one cause there are fewer believe 4. Also the distance of the objects of Faith makes them work less on the affections and the presence and other advantages of sensual Objects for a facile moving the Spirits makes them carrie men away so potently by making greater Commotions in the passions so that no wonder if sense do prevail with most I confess also that men have need of good acquaintance with Antiquity and other History and the Seal of the Church in most parts of the world to see the strong Evidence that there is of the Infallible Tradition of the Scriptures down to us and to some obscure men this may be inevident as it may be to one brought up in a secret Cloister whether ever we had a King or Parliament or Laws in England But the thing is not therefore inevident to the industrious No though it depend on that verity of Report which as proceeding from each particular person is contingent seeing there is Evidence of Infallible Verity even in the Circumstances of these Contingent reports And as Rada when he concludes boldly that Cognitio Dei respectu Contingentium non est proprie scientia c. yet seems to grant that God may scire Contingentia uâ— necessaria si non ut Contingentia so it may be said in our present Case the same Reports which are Contingent are yet in other respects of Evident Verity and so we know them But I finde I have been drawn beyond my intent to digress far on this point but it is because it tends to clear the main point in question To return therefore to Mr. Blake I do not know the meaning of his next words where he saith that This Argument Well followed would put me to a great loss in some of my Arguments for Scripture c. Doth he think that I argue to prove the Divinity of Scriptures from themselves alone as the Testifier thereof to our Faith or that I take it to be meerly or primarily de fide that Scripture is Gods Revelation when I have professedly published the contrary before those Arguments where I have also added these words of Mr. Rich. Hooker wherewith I will conclude this Section Truly it is not a thing impossible nor greatly hard even by such kinde of proofs so to manifest and clear that point that no man living shall be able to deny it without denying some apparent principles such as all men acknowledge to be true Again Scripture teacheth us that saving Truth which God hath discovered to the world by Revelation but it presumeth us taught otherwise that it self is Divine and Sacred Again These things we believe knowing by Reason that Scripture is the Word of God Again It is not required nor can be exacted at our hands that we should yield it any other Assent then such as doth answer the Evidence Again How bold and confident soever we may be in words when it comes to the tryal such as the Evidence is which the Truth hath such is the Assent nor can it be stronger if grounded as it should be so far Mr. Hooker cited once more Eccles pol. p. 102 103 c. §. 76. Mr. Bl. TO winde up all though there be some difference in the way between me and my learned friend yet there is little in the thing it self Mr. Baxter saies that the Proposition to which God sealeth runs thus If thou believe I do pardon thee and will save thee The soul must assume the Minor But
I suppose you wrong them by making them righter then they are For the very passages which you before expressed out of some of the chief of their writers do intimate that they do not indeed take the Covenant or Law it self to command true Perfection but that which they call Perfection is but as you say No other then the Grace of Sanctification in the very sense as the Orthodox hold it out But it is true perfection that those mean whom you now write against So that I see not the least ground for this first charge §. 84. Mr. Bl. 2. IF this opinion stand then God Accepts of Covenant-breakers of those that deal falsly in it whereas Scripture charges it upon the wicked those of whom God complains as Rebellious Deut. 29.25 Josh 7.15 Jer. 11.10 and 22.8.9 Yea it may be charged upon the best the most holy in the world lying under the guilt of it §. 84. R. B. THis charge proceedeth meerly from the confounding of the Duty as such and the Condition as such A Covenant which is also a Law as well as a Covenant may by the preceptive part Constitute much more Duty then shall be made the Condition of the Promises Properly it is only the non-performance of the Condition that is Covenant-breaking and so the Divines whom you oppose are not chargeable with your Consequent For they say not that The Covenant of Grace doth make perfect Obedience the Condition of its Promise and Accept Imperfect That were a flat contradiction for the Condition is Causa sine qua non cum quâ But only they say It Requireth or Commandeth perfect obedience and Accepteth imperfect And if you will speak so largely as to say that all who break the preceptive part of the Covenant are Covenant-breakers then no doubt but God Accepteth of many such and of none but such And as the word Covenant is not taken for the mutual contract but for Gods new Law called his Covenant his Testament his Disposition Constitution Ordination c. so no doubt we all are Covenant-breakers For whether we say that the new Law commandeth perfect obedience or not yet unless you take it exceeding restrainedly it must be acknowledged that the Precept is of larger extent then the Condition having appointed some Duties which it hath not made sine qua non to salvation If you send your childe a mile of an errand and say I charge you play not by the way but make haste and do not go in the dirt c. and if you come back by such an houre I will give you such a Reward if not you shall be whipt He that playes by the way and dirties himself and yet comes back by the hour appointed doth break the preceptive part but not the condition Or if you suppose a re-engagement by Promise to do both these he breaketh his own Covenant in the first respect which was not the condition of Reward or Punishment but not in the second And so do true Christians both break the preceptive part of the Covenant and also some of their own particular covenants with God as when a man promiseth I will commit this sin no more or I will perform such a duty such a day But these are not the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace which God hath made the Causa sine qua non of Justification or Salvation So that I conceive this charge unjust to say no more §. 85. Mr. Bl. 3. THen it will follow that as none can say that they have so answered the Command of the Law that they have never failed they have not if put to answer in the greatest rigor once transgressed so neither can they with the Church make appeal to God That they have not dealt falsly in the Covenant nor wickedly departed from their God Psal 44.17 Every sin according to this opinion being a breach of it and a dealing falsly in it §. 85. R. B. THis charge is as unjust as the former and the absurdity supposed to follow doth not but is supposed so to do upon the forementioned confusion of two acts of the Covenant or New Law the one Determining what shall be mans Duty the other what shall be Conditio sine qua non of Justification and Salvation § 86. Mr. Bl. 4. THen the great Promise of mercy from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him and his Righteousness â—nto childrens children to such as keep his Covenant and to those that remember his Commandements to do them Psal 103.17 18. only appertains to those that so keep the Law that they sin not at all against it §. 86. R. B. IT follows not If they sincerely keep the Law they fulfill the Conditions of the Covenant though not the Precept And they keep the Precept in an improper but usual sense as Keeping is taken for such a less degree of breaking as on Gospel grounds is Accepted This still runs upon the foresaid Confusion §. 87. Mr. Bl. 5. THen our Baptism-Vow is never to sin against God and as often as we renew our Covenant we do not only humble our selves that we have sinned but we afresh binde our selves never more to admit the least infirmity and so live and dye in the breach of it §. 87. R. B. WE do not promise in Baptism to do all that the Precept of the Covenant requireth but all that is made the Condition of Life and to Endeavor the rest Much less as the Covenant is taken in the largest sense as those seem to do whom you oppose may it be said that we promise to keep all its Precepts §. 88. Mr. Bl. 6. THen the distinction between those that entred Covenant and brake it as Jer. 31 32 33. and those that have the Law written in their hearts and put into their inward parts to observe it falls all standing equally Guilty of the breach of it no help of Grace being of power to enable to keep Covenant §. 88. R. B. WHen sincere obedience and perfect obedience are all one and when the Precept and the Condition of the Covenant are proved to be of equal extent then there will be ground for the charging of this Consequence In the first Covenant of Nature the Precept and the Condition were of equal extent for perfect obedience was the Condition but it is not so in the Covenant of Grace §. 89. Mr. Bl. 7. THen it follows that sinceritie is never called for as a Duty or required as a Grace but only dispensed with as a failing indulged as a want It is not so much a Christians honor or Character as his blemish or failing rather his defect then praise But we finde the contrary in Noah Job Asa Hezekiah Zachary and Elizabeth Nathaniel an Israelite indeed that entred Covenant and kept Covenant §. 89. R. B. I Will not say it is past the wit of man to finde the Ground of this charge i. e. to see how this should follow but I dare say it is past