Rich. Baxters apology against the modest exceptions of Mr. T. Blake and the digression of Mr. G. Kendall whereunto is added animadversions on a late dissertation of Ludiomæus Colvinus, aliaà Ludovicus Molinæs̳, M. Dr. Oxon, and an admonition of Mr. W. Eyre of Salisbury : with Mr. Crandon's Anatomy for satisfaction of Mr. Caryl. Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691. 1654 Approx. 609 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 92 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2007-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A26864 Wing B1188 ESTC R31573 12169815 ocm 12169815 55369 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A26864) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 55369) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1495:9) Rich. Baxters apology against the modest exceptions of Mr. T. Blake and the digression of Mr. G. Kendall whereunto is added animadversions on a late dissertation of Ludiomæus Colvinus, aliaà Ludovicus Molinæs̳, M. Dr. Oxon, and an admonition of Mr. W. Eyre of Salisbury : with Mr. Crandon's Anatomy for satisfaction of Mr. Caryl. Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691. [30], 155 [i.e. 143], [4] p. Printed by A.M. for Thomas Underhill ... and Francis Tyton ..., London : 1654. Half-title page reads: Baxter's apology. Imperfect page reads: Baxter's apology. Reproduction of original in the Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Church of England -- Apologetic works. Lord's Supper -- Church of England. Theology, Doctrinal. 2005-07 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2005-10 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2006-05 Ali Jakobson Sampled and proofread 2006-05 Ali Jakobson Text and markup reviewed and edited 2006-09 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion Baxters Apology . Directions for the Binder . The Generall Title . The Answer 1. To Blake . 2. To Kendall . 3. To Colvinus . The Epistle to Col. Taylor next to the Title of it . 4. To Eyre . 5. To Crandon . RICH. BAXTERS APOLOGY Against the Modest EXCEPTIONS OF Mr T. BLAKE . AND THE DIGRESSION OF Mr G. KENDALL . Whereunto is added ANIMADVERSIONS on a late DISSERTATION OF Ludiomaeus Colvinus , aliàs , Ludovicus Molinaeus , M. Dr OXON . AND AN Admonition of Mr W. Eyre of Salisbury . WITH Mr Crandon's Anatomy for satisfaction of Mr Caryl . Phil. 1.15.16 , 17 , 18 , 19. Some preach Christ even of Envy and Strife , and some also of Good Will : The one preach Christ of Contention , not sincerely , supposing to adde Affliction to my bonds : But the other of Love , knowing that I am set for the Defence of the Gospel . What then ? Notwithstanding every way , whether in pretence or in truth , Christ is preached , and I therein do Rejoyce , yea , and will Rejoyce . For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your Prayer , and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ . London , Printed by A.M. for Thomas Vnderhill , at the Anchor and Bible in Pauls Church-yard , and Francis Tyton at the three Daggers in Fleetstreet . 1654. TO THE Honourable Commissary General EDWARD WHALLEY . SIR , THough weakness and distance have prohibited me that converse with you which sometime I did enjoy , yet have they not excussed your former Kindeness out of my Remembrance . Received Benefits should not Die before us : If the Donor kill them not by Retraction , the Receiver must not suffocate them by Oblivion ; nor prove their Grave , who was intended for a Store-house , if not a Garden where they may be Rooted and be fruitfull . In those hearts where Benefits Live , the Benefactor Liveth . And those that Live in our Estimation and Affection , we desire their Names may be inscribed on our Monuments , and survive with ours , when we are Dead . While we live also we more regard their Judgements of us , then other mens ; and are more ambitious of standing right in their esteem ; and therefore are willing that our just Apologies may be in their hands , to hinder misapprehensions , and resist unjust Accusers . May these Reasons excuse my prefixing your Name to these Papers , and directing them first to your Hand : ( Custom having led me into that Road , wherein I do not unwillingly follow . ) It is not for Protection or Patronage of my Opinions : For that I referre them wholly to the Father of Lights , the Illuminating Spirit , and the Light of that Truth which they contain and Vindicate . Nor do I desire that you should make these things your Studies ; they being more fitted to the use of those Students , that can lay out much of their time on such things . I confess I had rather see in your Hands , the Holy Scriptures , and Books of Practical Divinity , then these Controversies : and had rather hear such Practical Discourses from your Mouth . So farre am I from soliciting you to any singular Opinion of mine , that I solicit you not once to read these Books ; save onely when any Opinion in them shall be Accused , to turn to the Words , and see what is said . It is the Practical Christian that holds fast the Truth , which many eager Disputers soon lose . Doting about Questions that engender strife , is not the Religiousness that God approves ; What ever the Professours of this Age may imagine . It is the most Practical Teachers and People in England commonly that are the most Orthodox . I have oft noted many mens Prayers to be much freer from Libertinism , then their Sermons ; and their Sermons then their Writings and Disputes . That 's a mans Judgement indeed , which he dare reduce to Practice , and own before God. The Work of these Papers have been to my minde somewhat like those sad Employments wherein I attended you : of themselves , grievous and ungratefull ; exasperating others , and not pleasing my self ( besides the ruinating of my bodily health ) And as the Remembrance of those years is so little delightfull to me , that I look back upon them as the saddest part of my life ; so the Review of this Apologie , is but the renewing of my trouble : to think of our Common frailty and darkness , and what Reverend and much valued Brethren I contradict ; but especially for fear lest men should make this Collision an occasion of Division , and by receiving the sparks into Combustible Affections , should turn that to a Conflagration which I intended but for Illumination . If you say , I should then have let it alone : The same answer must serve , as in the former Cause we were wont to use . Some say , that I who pretend so much for Peace , should not write of Controversies . For my self it is not much Matter : but must Gods Truth ( for such I take it ) stand as a Butt for every man to shoot at ? Must there be such Liberty of opposing it , and none of Defending ? One party cannot have Peace without the others Consent . To be Buffeted and Assaulted , and Commanded to Deliver up the Truth of God , and called Vnpeaceable if I defend it and resist , this is such Equity as we were wont to finde . In a word , both works were ungratefull to me , and are so in the Review ; but in both , as Providence and mens onset imposed a Necessity , and drove me to that strait , that I must Defend or do worse ; so did the same Providence so clear my way , and draw me on , and sweeten unusual Troubles with unusual Mercies , and Issue all in Testimonies of Grace , that as I had great mixtures of Comfort with Sorrow in the Performance , so have I in the Review : And as I had more eminent Deliverances and other Mercies in those years and wayes of Bloud and Dolour , then in most of my Life beside ; so have I had more encouraging Light since I was engaged in these Controversies . ( For I speak not of these few Papers onely , but of many more of the like Nature that have taken up my time . ) And as I still retain'd a Hope , that the End of all our Calamities and strange Disposings of Providence , would be somewhat Better then was Threatned of late : so Experience hath taught me to think , that the Issue of my most ungratefull Labours shall not be vain ; but that Providence which extracted them hath some use to make of them , better then I am yet aware of ; if not in this Age , yet in times to come . The best is , we now draw no bloud : and honest hearts will not take themselves wounded , with that blow which is given onely to their Errours . However , God must be served when he cals for it , though by the harshest and most unpleasing work . Onely the Lord teach us to watch carefully over our Deceitfull Hearts , least we should serve our selves while we think and say , we are serving him ; and lest we should Militate for our own Honour and Interest , when we pretend to do it for his Truth and Glory ! I hope , Sir , the Diversity of Opinions in these dayes , will not diminish your Estimation of Christianity , nor make you suspect that all is Doubtfull , because so much is Doubted of . Though the Tempter seems to be playing such a Game in the world , God will go beyond him , and turn that to Illustration and Confirmation , which he intended for Confusion and Extirpation of the Truth . You know it s no news to hear of some Ignorant , Proud and Licentious , of what Religion soever they be . And this Trinity is the Creator of Heresies . And as for the sober and Godly , it is but in lesser things that they disagree : and mostly about words and Methods more then Matter ( though the smallest things of God are not Contemptible . ) He that wonders to see wise men differ , doth but wonder that they are yet Imperfect , and know but in part ; that is , that they are yet Mortal sinners , and not Glorified on Earth ! And such wonderers know not what man is , and it seems are too great strangers to themselves . And if they turn these differences to the prejudice of Gods Truth , or dishonour of Godliness , they shew themselves yet more unreasonable ; to blame the Sunne that men are purblinde . And indeed were Pride and Passion laid aside in our Disputes , and men could gently suffer contradiction , and heartily love and correspond with those that in lower matters do gainsay them , I see not but such friendly debates might edifie . For your self , Sir , as you were a friend to sound Doctrine , to Vnity and to Piety , and to the Preachers , Defenders and Practisers thereof , while I converst with you , and as fame informeth us , have continued such ; so I hope that God who hath so long preserved you , will preserve you to the end ; and he that hath been your Shield in corporal dangers , will be so in spirituall . Your great Warfare is not yet accomplished : The Worms of Corruption that breed in our bowels , will live in some measure till we die our selves . Your Conquest of your self is yet Imperfect . To fight with your self , you will finde the hardest , but most necessary Conflict that ever yet you were engaged in ; and to overcome your self the most honourable and gainfull Victory . And think not that your greatest trials are all over . Prosperity hath its peculiar Temptations , by which it hath foiled many that stood unshaken in the storms of adversity . The Tempter who hath had you on the waves , will now assault you in the calm ; and hath his last game to play on the Mountain , till nature cause you to descend . Stand this Charge and you win the day . To which , as one that is faithful to you , I shall acquaint you in a few words , what his temptations are like to be , and how you should resist them : If you are already provided , a Remembrancer will do you no harm . 1. The first and great Assault will be , to entice you to Overvalue your present Prosperity , and to Judge the Creature to be better then it is , and to grasp after a fulness of Honour and Wealth , and then to say , Soul , take thy Rest . As you love your Peace , your Life , your Soul , your God , take heed of this . Judge of Prosperity as one that must go Naked out of the world : Esteem of earthly Greatness and Glory as that which will shortly leave you in the dust . Why should it be proper to Dying men to be Wise , and to Judge truly of this world , when all the living undoubtedly know that they must Die ? 2. At least the Tempter will perswade with you to enjoy your Prosperity to the satisfying of your flesh ; and tell you that the free use of the Creatures is your Christian Liberty , and therefore you need not deny your selves those Delights that God affordeth you . But remember that it is the seeming sweetness of the Creature that draws men from God : The Pleasantest Condition is the most dangerous . If ever you would have your soul Prosper , make no provision for the flesh to satisfie its lusts : A better man then any of us , was fain to tame his body and bring it into subjection . Mortification is a necessary , but much neglected part of the Christian Religion . 3. Should the Tempter prevail in these , it would follow , that God would be much forgotten , former Engagements violated , and the Invisible things of the Life to come would be seldom thought on , and less esteemed . O think on him that remembred you in your greatest straits ! It s a provoking sin to break those Engagements which depth of Extremity , or Greatness of Deliverance , did formerly constrain us to make with our God! Ingratitude makes a forfeiture of all we have . And think not well of your own heart , when you cannot think more sweetly of another world then of this . It s unhappy prosperity that makes God to be more sleighted , and the Glory to come more unsavoury to our thoughts , and makes us say , It is best to be here . 4. Another dangerous Temptation that will attend these , will be , to disregard Christs Interest through an over-minding of their own : To play your own game , and lay out your chiefest care for your self , and make Gods business to stoop unto your own . Where this prevails , the hearts of such are false to Christ : While they pretend to serve him , they do but serve themselves upon him . They will honour Christ no longer then he will honour them . And when they are once false to Christ , they can be true to no one else . Their friends are esteemed but as stepping stones to their Ends. When they can serve them no longer they reject them as unprofitable . Ever Remember , that man stands safest that espouseth no Interest contradictory to Christs ; I had almost said , None but Christs : For even Christs must be made his own , and then his own will be Christs . God is more engaged to secure his own Interest then ours . There is no Policy therefore comparable to this , to Engage most deeply where Christs chiefest Interest lieth , and to Vnite our own to his , in a just subordination . He that will needs have a standing divided from Christ , Independent on him , or Equal with him , much more in Opposition to him , is sure to fall . It will break the greatest Prince on Earth to espouse an Interest inconsistent with Christs , when he doth but arise to plead his Cause . Study therefore where Christs Interest most lieth , and then devote all your own to the promoting of it : and hold none that lives not as the Vine on the Wall , or rather as the branch in the Vine , in Dependance upon his . And upon Enquiry you will finde , that Christs Interest lies much in these two things , the Piety and the Peace of his People . The Reformation of his Churches , and the Vniting of them ( at home and abroad ) are the greatest works that any can be Imployed in . To which ends Gods chiefest means , is an Able , Godly , Diligent Ministry , to Teach and Rule his flocks according to his Word . All the Interest that God hath Given you , he expecteth should be speedily , diligently and undeservedly imployed to these Ends. Delay not , you have but your time . Think it not enough to do no harm , or no more good then those below you . Your standing is unsafe when you do little or nothing for God. He is not bound to hold you the Candle to do nothing , or to work for your self . Work therefore while it is day : the night comes when none can work . 5. Another Temptation that you must expect , will be , to have your minde swell with your Condition : and to disrespect the inferiour sort of your Brethren . But I hope the Lord will keep you small in your own eyes ; as remembring that you are the same in the eyes of your Judge , and your shadow is not lengthened by your successes , and that you must lie down with the Vulgar in the common dust . Sir , Because the matter of this Book may be less useful to you , I could not direct it to your hand , without some words that might be more useful . I do not fear least you should take my faithful dealing for an injury , or interpret my Monition to be an Accusation ; as long as you so well know the Affections of your Monitor . The Lord be your Teacher and Defence , and Direct , Excite , Encourage and Succeed you , and all that have Opportunity to do any thing to the Repairing of our Breaches , by furthering The Reformation and Unity of the Churches : Which is the earnest Desire , and daily Prayer of Your Servant in the work of Christ . RICHARD BAXTER . Kederminster , Marc. 8th 1653. RICH. BAXTERS ACCOUNT Given to his Reverend Brother Mr T. BLAKE OF THE Reasons of his Dissent FROM The Doctrine of his Exceptions in his late TREATISE of the COVENANTS . JOHN 3.7 . Little Children , let no man Deceive you : He that doth Righteousness , is Righteous , even as he is Righteous . 1 TIM . 4.8 . Godliness is Profitable unto All things , having Promise of the Life that now is , and of that which is to come . LONDON , Printed by A. M. for Thomas Vnderhill at the Anchor and Bible in Pauls Church-yard , and Francis Tyton at the three Daggers in Fleetstreet , 1654. The Preface Apologetical . SO sweet a thing is Christian Love and Concord , and so precious are the thoughts of Peace to my Soul , that I think it unmeet in this contentious Age , to publish such a Controversie as this , without an Apology : which , its likely , may be needful , both as to the Matter and the Manner . Not that I dare rather choose to Excuse a fault , then to forbear the committing of it : But that I would have the Reader judge of things as they are . Just Apologies are not a cover to our faults , but for removal of mis-representations , and healing of misapprehensions , that those may not be taken for faults which are none , or those to be of the greater size , which are but ordinary infirmities . Whether my Apology be Just , the Reader must judge . I do so heartily Love Peace , that I have hard thoughts of Controversie : yet do I so Love the Truth , that I refuse not to contend for it . Though the strait be great , yet it s no other then we are usually put to , even in lower things . The most noble and excellent ends , may have some distastful means : which as none that is in his right senses will choose for themselves , so none but a slave to his senses will refuse when they are necessary . It is no Contradiction in such a case , but true Discretion , to Choose the thing which at the same time we do Abhor : To choose it as a necessary Means , and yet to abhorre it for its Ungrateful Nature . We are contented to seek , and buy , and take that Physick which we so abhorre ▪ that we have much ado to get it down or to retain it . The Lord knows , that contending is distastful to my soul : though my corrupt nature is too prone to it . Much studying of Controversies hath oft discomposed my minde , and interrupted my more sweet and heavenly thoughts , and unfitted me for publick and private duties ; so that I as sensibly finde my self a loser by it , as by some other avocations of a more aliene nature . Yet dare I not be so selfish as to cast it off . That must be endured , which may not be desired . We may not pretend the disadvantages to our souls ( much less any lower ) against apparent duty , and service to the truth of God. Many wayes hath our Master to make us a full reparation for our losses . What then shall I resolve on ? Neither to Delight in Controversie ; nor totally to Refuse it . Not to rush upon it unadvisedly , nor to be carried into it by blinde Passion and partiality , nor yet to cast away my Captains Colours , nor to draw back when I am prest . Not to militate for any Faction , but for the Faith ; nor for vain-glory and credit , but for Christ : And this with such a differencing the Person from the Cause , that as it respecteth the errour , it shall be bitter and contentious ; but as to my Brother , it shall be a Conference of Love. I abhorre almost nothing more in Divines , then laying too much upon the smaller controvertible Doctrinals , and making too much of our Religion to consist in curious and unnecessary speculations , if not unsearchable , unrevealed things ; contradicting one of their first Maxims , that [ Theology is a Practical Science . ] An honest Philosopher saw the evil of this * . Yet must Gods commands be obeyed , and the Truth defended , and the Church confirmed and edified , and the soul of an erring Brother be relieved , though at a dearer rate then a verbal Disputation . It is about five years since I wrote a small book about Justification , and being in great weakness and expectation of death , I was forced to deliberate , Whether to publish it with its many Imperfections , or not at all ? I chose the former , supposing the Defects and Crudities would be charged only on the Author , and that some Light might notwithstanding appear to the Reader , which might further him in the understanding of several truths . I durst not so far value reputation , as to be injurious to Verity , for fear of discovering my own infirmity : It s no time to be solicitous about the esteem of men , when we are drawing near to the Judgement Seat of God. When this Book came abroad , it fell under very different Censures , as most things use to do that seem to go out of the ordinary road . Too many overvalued it : Some were offended at it . Hereupon being afraid lest by Ignorance or Rashness I should wrong the Church and Truth , I did in the end of my Book of Baptism , desire my Brethrens animadversions and advice : which accordingly many of the most pious and Learned men that I know in the Land , were pleased to afford me ; and that with so much Ingenuity , Love and Gentleness , as I must needs confess my self their Debtor , as having no way deserved so great a favour : and I do hereby return them my most hearty thanks . After this my Reverend and Dear Brother Mr Blake in a Treatise of the Covenants , did publish a Confutation of some things in my Book ( among many others whom he deals with , Mr Powell , Mr. Tombes , Mr. Owen , Mr. Firmin , &c. ) wherein I found nothing but tenderness and brotherly Love , as to my person ; and no such inclination to extreams in his Doctrine , as I found in some others ; but much Moderation and Sobriety , as indeed the Gravity , Piety and Integrity of the man , would promise to any that know him . Only I thought it might have been more convenient to him , to me , and to others , if I had seen his exceptions before they had been published , that so having known what I would reply , he might have published only so much as he remained unsatisfied in . But as it seems , his Judgement was otherwise , so is it no whit to me offensive . Yet when I had read his Book , it was my Resolution , to send him privately my Reply , that so we might consider how farre we were agreed , and how farre the difference was onely seeming and about words , and might publish only the remainder to the world , by joynt Consent . The Reasons of this Resolution were these : First , Because I was loath by tedious altercations , to hinder the Reader from discerning the Truth : It is the course of most voluminous Disputers , to tire their Readers with Contendings about words , that they can hardly finde out the true state of the Controversie ; much less discern on which side is the Truth . Which might be much remedied if men would but lovingly first debate the matter in private , and cut off all the superfluities and verbal Quarrels ; and then put out only the material differences by joynt Consent , having Corrected even in the language and manner of debating , whatsoever was displeasing or seemed injurious to either party . Secondly , Because I unfeignedly abhorre contending , and never wrote any thing that way , but when I was unavoidably necessitated . Thirdly , Because I so well know my own frailty , and proneness to be over-eager and keen , and unmannerly in my stile , and the frailty of most Brethren in being Impatient hereof ; yea of many in judging themselves wronged when they are not , and making some plain speeches which were but necessary or innocent , to seem proud , contemptuous , and sleighting as to mens persons , racking them to a sense that was never intended , I therefore thought it safest to avoid all occasions of such mistakes , which may be injurious to themselves , as well as to me . Fourthly , Because the Lord hath of late years by a strange , unresistible work of his power , fastned in my soul so deep an Apprehension of the Evil of Dissentions , and of the Excellency and Necessity of the Unity of Brethren , and the Peace of the Church ; and in order hereto , of the healing of our Divisions , that it sticks in my thoughts night and day , and the Zeal of such a Reconciliation doth eat me up ; so that I make it the main study and business of my Meditations , which way I might do any thing towards its accomplishment . And I was much afraid , lest if I wrote by way of Controversie , I might , by exasperating my Brethren , hinder this happy work . He that knoweth my heart , knoweth that these were my thoughts . Hereupon I did in the first Page signifie to M. Blake , this my Resolution , which when I was forced to alter , I would not alter the words of my writing , but having given this account of the reason of them , I shall let them go as I wrote them . Before I had finished my Reply to Mr. Blake , comes out Mr. Kendal's Book against M. Goodwin , with his Digression against me : After-this , I was informed of divers others that were ready to write against my Doctrine , and some that had written , and were ready to publish it , and divers others that were desirous to send me their Animadversions . I did therefore apprehend ( and so did many learned Friends ) an unavoidable Necessity of appearing more publickly , both to spare my Friends the labour of writing the same things to me over and over , which so many others had written before ; and to spare my self the time and pains of endless private Replies ( which have this three years taken me up , and hindered me from more profitable work : ) and also to prevent mens publication of more such writings as have already been published ; seeing when none know what I can say against them , the rest may go on in the way as these have done , and trouble themselves and the world in vain . Besides , I understood that some were offended at my silence , as mis-interpreting it to be from contempt . Being therefore necessitated to do something of this kinde , I could not ( according to the Laws of Justice or Friendship ) deal publickly with any , but those that had begun to deal publickly with me . It s true , there hath been long unanswered , a Book of Mr. Owens against some things which I had wrote which concerned him . But I never thought fit ( nor yet do ) to Reply to that : 1. Partly because it containeth so little matter of reall difference between him and me ( and most of that is answered by Mr. Blake , and in my Reply to Mr. Kendall : ) The main Points being , Whether Christ suffered the same which the Law threatned , or the Value , or that which was equivalent ? ( wherein he yieldeth as much as I need ) and , Whether the Covenant be Conditional ? and , Whether the Obligation to Punishment be dissolved before we Believed , sinned , or were born ? And to vindicate the Truth in these two or three Points , I conceive it not so meet a way , to do it in Answer to that Book , wherein ten times more words would be bestowed in altercations , and upon the by . 2. Besides , I was never never necessitated to a Reply to that Book , nor once desired , and I will do nothing of that kinde , which I know how to avoid . 3. But indeed my greatest reason , was the consciousness of my temerity in being so foolishly drawn to begin with him ; and the consciousness of my fault in one or two unmannerly words of him , and consequently the consciousness of my duty to be first silent . It is not fit that I should both begin and end . But these Brethren that I here Reply to , did begin with me . Upon these Reasons , I sent not my papers to Mr. Blake , but resolved to publish them , with my Reply to Mr. K. As for Mr. K. himself , I know not the man ; but by his writings he appears to be a Learned man : And I will hope his humility may be answerable to his Learning , though he here express it not : We are all poor frail sinners ; and above all do hardly Master our Pride ; the fire whereof in an unmortified soul , doth make fewell to it self of Gods excellent Gifts , till it have turned them all into salt and ashes . That which this Learned man hath troubled himself to write concerning my self , I will not insist on : It is not for my self that I am disputing , but for the Truth , so farre as I know it : I can truly say as Augustine to Hierom , Obsecro te per mansuetudinem Christi , ut si te laesi , dimittas mihi ; nec me vicissim laedendo malum pro malo reddas ▪ Laedes enim si mihi tacueris errorem meum , quem forte inveneris in Scriptis , vel in dictis meis . Nam si ea in me reprehenderis , quae reprehendenda non sunt , te potius laedis quam me ; quod absit à m●ribus , & sancto proposito tuo , ut hoc facias voluntate laedendi culpans in me aliquid dente malevolo , quod mente veridica scis non esse culpandum , &c. Fieri potest ut tibi videatur aliud quam veritas habet , dum tamen aliud abs te non fiat quam charitas habet . Nam & ego amicissimam reprehensionem tuam gratissime accipiam , etiamsi reprehendi non meruit , quod rectè defendi potest : Aut agnoscam simul & benevolentiam tuam & culpam méam ; & quantum Dominus donat , in alio gratus , in alio emendatus inveniar . Quid ergo ? fortasse dura , sed certè salubria verba tua tanquam cestus Entelli pertimescam . Caedebatur ille : non curabatur : Et ideo vincebatur , non sanabatur . Ego autem si medicinalem correptionem tuam , tranquillus accepero , non dolebo . Si vero infirmitas vel humana , vel mea , etiam cum veraciter arguitur , non potest non aliquantulum contristari ; Melius tumor Capitis dolet cum curatur , quam dum ei parcitur , & non sanatur . Hoc est enim quod acutè vidit , qui dixit , Vtiliores esse plerumque inimicos objurgantes , quam amicos objurgare metuentes . Illi enim dum rixantur dicunt aliquando vera , quae corrigamus : isti autem minorem quam oportet exhibent Justitiae libertatem , dum amicitiae timent exasperare dulcedinem . Non mihi esse debet molestum pondus aetatis tuae , dummodo conteratur palea culpae meae . I do not feel my self hurt by the words of Mr. K ▪ against my self , much less by any free disclosure of my faults . But I confess I desired more Clemency to his Adversary , and more humble sense of his own frailty , when I read some passages in him against Mr. Goodwin . For example , part . 3. pag. 112 , 113. much of two pages are taken up in [ * A solemn Profession of his discerning the Just hand of heaven , and the spirit of slumber on Mr. Goodwin , and the pompous display of his folly , to appear most ridiculous , &c. ] even daring to [ adore the hand of God in infatuating his parts , that Balaams Ass may see the hand of the Angel against the Prophet ] with more of the like . And what is the matter ? Why Mr. Goodwin overseeingly wrote the word [ Antecedent ] for [ Consequent ] and [ Consequent ] for [ Antecedent . ] A hainous crime ! When I read such passages as these in him , I began to think , how well I had sped , and tantum non , did owe him thanks for handling me so gently , even in those passages that others most blamed . But I saw it was no wonder , if all my words were sifted to the bran * . 2. As for the Manner of my handling these Controversies ( which is the next thing that ( more ) needeth an Apology , ) I expect to be blamed for these three things : 1. For unprofitable Altercations and Repetitions . 2. For too much curiosity and obscurity in some distinctions . 3. For too course and sharp a stile . 1. For the first , I knew not how to avoid it , without inconvenience . I must follow the leading of them that I reply to . I must not digress too farre , to fetch in more usefull matter then they put into my hands . Yet I think I have done somewhat in that kinde , as far as I saw fit . And when the same words of theirs , require the same answers , I am forced sometime to repeat them , where the occasion is repeated . Yet I can promise the Reader that I will not go near so far in this way of repetition , as more learned disputants do , and in particular Dr. Twiss . 2. For the second Exception , I must say , that many are mistaken in my way , in that they discern not the difference , 1. Between Necessary distinguishing and unnecessary . 2. Between Curiosity in the main Cause , and in the Means of discussing it . 3. Between curious Notions that are thrust on the Church and poor ignorant people , as Necessary and Certain ; and such as we are forced to use with Learned men to discover their mistakes , and to expugne curiosity of Errour or Uncertainty , by exactness of indagation , and as curious an explication of the Truth . I am somewhat confident that my curious distinguishing ( as some call it ) is but of the later sort , in all these respects . For example , In the present Controversie about the Instrumentality of faith to Justification , that which offendeth me is , that Divines should be so dangerously curious , as to make a Logical Notion of such Necessity , which Gods Word never used , nor for ought I know , the Church for many a hundred year ; and which poor people cannot comprehend : Yea and that they may lay so much of the difference between us and the Papists on this point , thereby most dangerously hardening them , when they shall discover our Errour ; and occasion them to triumph over us , and to think , that the rest of our Doctrine is like this ? And that this Instrumentality is still so contradistinguished from Merit , as if there were no third way of Faiths Interest in our Justification , but it must needs be the one or the other . Yea and the most Learned in the upshot flie to this , that Credere is not Agere , but Pati , and is but Actio Grammatica , or the name of Action , but Physically or hyperphysically a suffering . Is not here a curious Doctrine of Faith and Justification ? If Aristotle had been a Christian he could not have comprehended it : Much more is it too fine for vulgar wits ( as well as too false for lovers of the Truth . ) In opposition to this , and in compassion of plain Christians , I only say , that faith is the Condition of our Justification ; or that the reason why we are Justified by it ( supposing its Object , and its Aptitude ) is , because the Free Donor , Law-giver and Justifier will have it so , and hath designed it to this Office in his Promise or Testament . I think this is plain Doctrine , and fit for plain men . There 's scarce the simplest man in the Town , if one offer him the Soveraigns pardon for Rebellion , on Condition he will thankfully Accept it , and promise to Rebell no more , but he knows this to be the reason why his Acceptance hath an Interest in his pardoning ( viz. as the fittest Condition freely determined on by the Soveraign ) without any more ado . And I think to reade him a Logick Lecture about Active or Passive Instrumentality , would more abuse then enlighten his understanding . Yet the subtilties of those whom I oppose , doth force me oft to distinguish , to expugne their Sophistry : and I am forced to use more accurate means to defend a plain Truth . And indeed , he that Defineth and Distinguisheth well teacheth well . Confusion is the Mother and Nurse of Errour . Truth loves the Light. It is not sound Distinction that I blame in any , but fancies and vain curiosities , and carrying us from Matter to Words , and making an appearance of difference , where there is none , and calling Confusion by the name of distinction or explication . I am sure a few obvious Distinctions , have been a Key to let many a truth into my understanding . Moreover I must desire the Reader to consider , when things seem too curious to him , and hard to be understood , whether it be not from the Nature of the subject matter , rather then from any unnecessary Curiosity in me : If the matter be such as will bear no more familiar and plain enodations and explications , I cannot help that . As Seneca saith , Epist . 58. Platoni imputes , non mihi hane ●erum difficultatem . Nulla est autem sine difficultate subtilitas . I cannot better speak my minde then in the words of Austin , li. 5. de Trinit . c. 1. Ab his etiam qui ista lecturi sunt , ut ignoscant peto ubi me magis voluisse quam potuisse dicere animadverterint , quod vel ipsi me●ius Intelligunt , vel propter mei eloquii difficultatem non intelligunt : Sicut ego eis ignos●o , ubi propter suam tarditatem intelligere non possunt . Pardon my obscure difficult expressions , and I will pardon your dulness of apprehension . 3. For the third Exception , viz. the sharpness of my stile , I have these things to say , 1. I dare not , nor will not wholly excuse it . I am too conscious of my frailty , to think my self innocent in this . I confessed my fault as to one even now ; and I confess as to another ( Mr Walker ) I committed the same fault , by too unmannerly provoking expressions ( Though I will take none for a competent Judge of the degree of my fault , that hath not read his Answer to J. Goodwin , and Mr Gatakers Vindication of Mr Wottons Defence . ) The other passages that some accuse me of , are , I think , upon a forced mistaken sense of my words . The most real sharpness that ever I was guilty of , was against Mr Tombes in my Book of Baptism : and it s too probable that in this against Mr K. I have transgressed : which if I have done , I heartily desire him , as I do all other Brethren whom I have offended , in compassion of humane frailty , to remit it ; as I heartily do all those passages of his , which his Readers do generally judge so unsavoury . However I do adjure every Reader , that would not break the ninth Commandment , and wrong God and themselves and me by false censures , that they impute not my sharp expressions to a disesteem of Christian Unity and Peace , or a hatred to my Brother : and that by too impatient reception , they make it not an occasion of disaffection , or breach of peace in themselves . For the Lord knows , that , though my words may be too rough and earnest , yet my soul longeth after the Unity and Peace of the Church . And I never yet wrote against any Brother so sharply , but I could heartily live with him in dear Love and Communion ; as I am confident I should do with these , if they were near me : For sure I am , I disagree not with those with whom I do converse ; nor ever fell out with any Brother , to my remembrance , since I was a childe . Charge me with unmeet expressions if you please ; but with no further Unpeaceableness , Disaffection , or Contempt of my Brethren , then you can prove . 2. I must intreat the Reader to distinguish carefully , between my speeches against the Person , and against the Errour or Cause which I oppose . I confess , when I am confident that it is Errour that I speak against , especially if it appear to be foul or dangerous , I am apt to shame it , and load it with Absurdities , and shew the nakedness of it to the Reader : In this case , I finde many take it as if I spoke all this of the Person , and censured him as absurd , as I do his Opinion : which is an injurious charge ; seeing a wise man may hold an absurd Opinion . And I think , as I must not speak contemptuously of my Brother for a lesser Errour , so neither must I for his sake , speak lightly and favourably of his faults . Errour is not like confessed sins , which none dare own , or encourage others in : but it is a Vice that disposeth men to Infect all they can ; and emboldneth them to defend it , and fearlesly to draw all others into the guilt . And therefore it needeth the most potent opposition , and the souls of our Brethren need the most effectual preservative : And that must not be only by a naked , dull Confutation ; but also by a discovery of the foulness , the sinfulnes and dangerousness of the Errour . The Affections have need to be awaked , as well as the Understanding informed , in the present case , as well as against common moral Vices . I am sure Seducers make no small advantage , by moving the Affections , and why they that speak Truth should not do so , I cannot tell . If we must do so in Preaching , so must we in some Disputings , still supposing that Information go first , and exciting application be but subservient , and be not the leading , or the principall part . ●●ose that take intellectuall Errour to be no sinne , must deny the understanding to be under a Law , and its acts to be participativè voluntary , and being commanded by the Will. And if Errour be sinne , we may have leave to disgrace it and deal with it as sinne ; provided that we maintain our Charity to the erring Brother . I am bound not to hate my Brother in my heart , but plainly to Rebuke him , and not suffer sin to rest upon him . If he take it ill , that makes not me the offendor , nor will discharge me from my duty . 3. I confess I think we are commonly too tender ear'd in such cases : of which I have spoken my minde already in the end of the Preface to my Book of Baptism . I have oft wondered to think what patience we expect ( and justly ) yea and finde , in many of the worst of our hearers , when we speak to them as cuttingly as possibly we can ( and all too little : ) and how little we exercise or can allow to one another ! and what silken ears the Preachers of humility have themselves ? And I cannot but observe the strange partiality of the best : how zealous they are against a Toleration of Errours ; and yet how impatient of being told of their own . Other mens should be cut down with the Sword , and theirs may not be plainly confuted by the Word : nor can we so skilf●●ry butter and oyl our words , but that we shall be taken for contemners of our Brethren . Not that I am free from the same disease : but ( though proud hearers judge him a proud speaker that deals plainly with them , yet ) I can truly say of that sin , to the praise of my Physition , as Seneca Epist . 8. Salutares admonitiones velut medicamentorum utilium compositiones litteris mando , esse illas efficaces in meis ulceribus expertus : quae etiamsi persanata non sunt , serpere desierunt . Rectum iter quod serò cognovi , & lassus errando , aliis monstro . And for my own stile in writing , it is but such as I would use in free speaking , if any Brethren were present : and I think they would then bear it . I would not be furious , nor yet would I be blockish ; nor speak as without life about the matters of life . I say of earnestness as Seneca of wit , Epist . 75. Qualis sermo meus esset si unà sederemus , aut ambularemus , tales esse Epistolas meas volo , quae nihil habeant accersitum , aut fictum . Si fieri posset quid sentiam ostendere , quam loqui , mallem . Etiamsi disputarem , nec supploderem pedem , &c. hoc unum plane tibi approbare vellem , omnia me illa sentire quae dicerem , nec tantum sentire sed amare . Non jejuna esse & arida volo , quae de rebus tam magnis dicentur . Neque enim Philosophia ingenio renuntiat . Haec sit propositi nostri summa : quod sentimus , loquamur ; quod loquimur sentiamus . 4. One thing more I desire : that if my words be any where offensive , the Reader will do me that right , as to consider diligently the words that I Reply to : for without that , you cannot equally judge of mine . Though I do not feel my self smart by any words of Mr K's , yet I knew not well how sufficiently to Reply to them , without manifesting them to be as they are . I remember Hierom , speaking of one Evagrius that pleaded for the Stoical impassionateness , saith he was , Aut Deus , aut Saxum : I am neither : and therefore must speak as I am . Yet this I will promise my most offended Brethren , that in the harshest of my Writings , I will not give my adversaries half so hard language , as did either Hierom the most Learned of the Fathers , or Calvin the most Judicious and Happy of the Reformers , no nor as Dr Twisse the most Learned opposer of the Arminians . And I remember what it was that Hierom complained of ( advers . Ruffinum ) Canino dente me rodunt , in publico detrahentes , legentes in angulis : Iidem Accusatores & Defensores ; eum in aliis probent , quod in me reprobant : quasi Virtus & Vitium non in Rebus sit , sed cum Authone mutetur . I cannot blame the Reader if he be weary of this long Apolo●●● ▪ and ask , To what purpose are all these words ? To whom I truly answer ; More for thy sake then mine own : because some angry Divines that dissent , do raise such an odium against my Writings , upon the pretenses before intimated , that they may thereby hinder thee from receiving any benefit , and entertaining the Truth . For my own sake , I confess it little troubleth me ; for I know it hath been the case of my betters , and I have greater matters to be troubled for . I can say as Vict. Strigelius Epist . ad Wesenbech . a little before his death , Ego editione talium pagellarum nec nominis mei vanam gloriolam quaero , nec aucupium pecuniae exerceo : Sed cupio Deo declarare meam gratitudinem pro maximis beneficiis ; & Ecclesiae ostendere meam confessionem , denique mediocribus ingeniis aliqua ex parte prodesse . Horum finium cum mihi optime sim Conscius , non met●o quorundam insulsas aut venenatas reprehensiones , sed me & meos labores Filio Dei commendo . Scio meum Vitae curriculum & breve & exiguum esse : Quare in hac brevitate peregrinationis ea dicam , scribam & faciam , quae migrationem in vitam aeternam non impediunt . This Learned Divine ( Strigelius ) himself , and before him Melancthon , as peaceable as Learned ( and many another besides them also ) have been so tired with the censures and reproaches of Divines , that it made them , if not weary of living , yet more willing to die : So that Melancthon thus wrote down before his death , the motives of his willingness to leave this world . A sinistris . Discedes a Peccatis : Liberaberis ab aerumnis & a Rabie Theologorum . A dextris . Venies in Lucem : Videbis Deum : Intueberis Filium Dei : Disces illa mira arcana quae in hac vita intelligere non potuisti : Cur sic simus conditi : Qualis sit copulati● duarum naturarum in Christo . Nay it is not only Dissenters , that do terrifie people from reading what I have written , by telling them of I know not what latent dangerous Errours ; but even they that are of the same opinion with me : For example , I lately wrote , that [ the Doctrine of Infallible perseverance of all the sanctified , was my strong opinion , and I was perswaded of its truth , ] and I argued for it from Scripture ; yet because I so far acknowledged my own weakness , as to say , that I was not so fully certain of it , as of the Articles of the Creed , and because I say , I think it unsafe for a backsliding scandalous Christian , to venture his salvation meerly on this controverted Point , ] what offence is taken ? what reports spread abroad ? some proclaiming that I wrote against Perseverance ( even when I wrote for it ; ) Others that I am turn'd Arminian : Others that I am dangerously warping ! In so much that some of my nearest friends , for whose good I published that Book , were ready to throw it by for fear of being infected with my doctrine against Perseverance ! The enemies Instruments be not all unlearned nor ungodly . For my part , I commend their zeal against Errour , so it be Errour indeed , and so they will moderate it with Charity and Humility . I am as strongly perswaded that its the Dissenters that erre , as they are that its I. And were they as zealous against Errour indeed , I think I might have spared the labour of such Writings as these . But I remember how they reprehended Beatus Rhenanus for his supposed coveteousness , Beatus est Beatus : attamen sibi . So are such Brethren charitable , sibi & suis . And all this comes a studio partium , and because the Doctrine of the Unity of Christs Body , and the Communion of Saints ( as Saints ) is not reduced to practice ; and we love not men so much for being of the same Body , as for being of the same Side or Party with us ; nor for being in the same Christ , as for being of the same Opinion . If he that knows Christ knows all things ; and if Interest in Christ alone be enough to make us Happy ; then is it enough to make our Brother Amiable ; though still we may be allowed the dislike of his faults . Which side the Truth lies on , in the Points here debated , I willingly leave the Reader to judge according to the evidence that shall appear to him in the perusal . I desire no more of him , but Diligence , Impartiality , and Patience in his studying it : And I again intreat my Brethren to believe that I write this in an unfained Love of Peace and them : and that accordingly they will receive it : and where they meet with any of the effects of my infirmity , which may seem provoking and injurious to them , they will compassionately remit them ; remembring that Heaven will shortly Reconcile our differences . Kederminster , Aug. 1. 1653. 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 Condi●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 that Conclusion to be de fide , § . 75. pag. 133 That Divine Faith hath Evidence , as well as Certainty . Rob. Baronius and Rada's words to the contrary , examined , § . 75. pag. 134 The difference between Mr. Bl. and me contracted , and a plain ●ogent Argument added , to prove , that the Conclusion fore-mentioned is not sealed , § . 76. pag. 139 The possibility but vanity of Conditional sealing , § . 77. pag. 140 More of Mr. Bl's Reasons answered , § . 78 , to 81. pag. 141 The danger of teaching men , that they are bound to believe that they are Justified , and shall be saved , § . 81. pag. 142 In what sense the Covenant commandeth perfect obedience , § . 82. pag. 144 Mr. Bl's Reasons examined , concerning the Covenants commanding perfection , § . 82 , to 91. pag. 144 How far true believers are Covenant-breakers , § . 84. pag. 148 The Covenant is Gods Law , § . 91. pag. 152 The Conclusion Apologetical against the charge of singularity , § . 92. pag. 152 The Prologue . MY Reverend and dearly beloved Brother , I remember that when I met you last at Shrewsbury , you told me that you had sent to the Presse a Treatise of the Covenants , and desired me not to be offended , if you published in it some things against my Judgement : Your Treatise is since come to my hands , and upon a brief perusall of some part of it , I am bold to let you know this much of my thoughts , 1. That I very much value and honour your Learned Labours , and had I been Mr Vines or Mr Fisher , I might rather have given ( in some respects ) a higher commendations of your Book : And especially I love it for its sound discoveries of the Vanity of the Antinomians . 2. So farre am I from being offended at your Writing against my Writings , that ( as I have oft said concerning Mr Owen , since I saw his Book against me , even so do I by you ) I never honoured you so much ( though much ) nor loved you so dearly ( though dearly ) before as since ; for I see more of your worth then I saw before . For where I erre , why should I be offended with any brother for loving Gods Truth and mens souls , above my Errours , or any seeming Reputation of mine that may be ingaged in them , and for seeking to cure the hurt that I have done ? God forbid that I should seek to maintain a Reputation obtained by , or held in an opposition to the Truth . I take all my Errors in Theology ( even in the highest revealed points , participaliter ) to be my sinnes ; but especially my divulged Errors : And I take him for my best friend , that is the greatest enemy to my sins . And where I erre not , I have little cause for my own sake to be offended at your opposition . For as you are pleased to honour me too highly both in your Epithetes and tender dealing , yea in being at so much pains with any thing of mine , and in stooping to a publick opposition of that which you might have thought more worthy of your contempt , so I know you did it in a zeal for God and Truth , and you thought all was Error that you opposed ; so that in the general we fight under one Master , and for one Cause , and against one Enemy : You are for Christ , 1. For Truth and against Errors , so farre as you know it , and so am I. I know you wrote not against Me , but against my Errors , reall or supposed . And truly , though I would not be shamelesse or impenitent , nor go so far as Seneca , to say we should not object a common fault to singular persons ( Vid. Cor. de Irâ , l. 3. c. 26. p. ( mihi ) 452. no more then to reproach a Blackmore with his colour ; yet I see so much by the most Learned and Judicious , to assure me that humanum est errare , and that we know but in part , that I take it for no more dishonour , to have the world know that I erre , then for them to know that I am one of their Brethren , a son of Adam , and not yet arrived at that blessed state where that which is childish shall cease , and all that is imperfect shall be done away . Only if my Errors be greater then ordinary , I must be humbled more then ordinary , as knowing that my sin is the cause that I have no greater illumination of the Spirit . I have truly published to the world my indignation against the proud indignation of those men , that account him their enemy that shall publiquely contradict them . 2. Yet must I needs tell you , that in the points which you contradict , I finde no great alteration upon my understanding by your Writings ; whether it be from the want of evidence of truth in your Confutation , or through the dulnesse of my Apprehension , I hope I shall better be able to judge , when I have heard from you next . I think I may safely say , It is not from an unwillingness to know the Truth . And one further difference there is in our Judgements : For my Judgement is , that it is not so convenient nor safe a way to publish suddenly a reply to your opposition , as to tell you my thoughts privately ( seeing we live so near ) and to bring the Points in difference by friendly collations to as narrow a compass as we can , and make as clear a discovery of each others meanings as may be ; and then by joynt consent to tell the world our several Judgements , and our Reasons , as lovers of the Truth and of each other ; that so others may have the benefit of our friendly Collations and Enquiries ; and may be thereby advantaged for the more facile discovery of the Truth . Truly I would have all such Controversies so handled , that all the vain altercations might lye in the dust in our studies , and that which is published might be in one Volume friendly subscribed by both parties . In this I perceive by your practise , your Judgement differs from mine ; and that you rather judge it fittest to speak first by the Presse , that the world may hear us . I crave your acceptance of these Papers , rather in this private way , and that you will signifie to me in what way I shall expect your return , wherein I think it fitter you please your self then me . I shall faithfully give you an account of the effect of your Arguments on my weak understanding ; but not in the order as they lye in your Book , but I will begin with those Points which I judge to be of greatest moment . §. 1. Mr Blake Treat . of Covenants , pag. 79. IT is also true that faith accepts Christ as a Lord , as well as a Saviour : But it is the Acceptation of him as a Saviour , not as a Lord , that Justifies : Christ Rules his People as a King , Teacheth them as a Prophet , but makes Atonement for them only as a Priest , by giving himself in Sacrifice , his blood for Remission of sins : These must be distinguished , but not divided : Faith hath an eye at all , the blood of Christ , the command of Christ , the doctrine of Christ , but as it lies and fastens on his blood , so it Justifies . 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 ea●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 produce to teach the world that the only justifying act of faith is , The Accepting of Justification as merited by Christs blood , or the Accepting of Christs Righteousness to justifie them ; it is not hard for an unprejudiced man to discern . For my part , in all my experience of the case of the ungodly that I have trial of , I can finde no commoner cause of their general delusion and perdition , then this very doctrine ; which they have generally received , though not in such exact terms a● it is taught them . I never met with the most rebellious wretch ( except now and then one under terrors ) but when they have sinned their worst , they still think to be saved , because they believe : And what is their beleeving ? why they beleeve that Christ died for them , and therefore God will forgive them , and they trust for pardon and salvation to Christs death and Gods mercy : This were good , if this were not all ; but if Christ were also received as their Sovereign and Sanctifier and Teacher : But if this were the only justifying act ( as they usually speak ) then I should not know how to disprove him that should tell me that all men in the world shall be saved that beleeve the Gospel to be true : or at least , the far greatest part of the most wicked men : For I am certain that they are willing not to be damned , and therefore Accept , or are Willing of Christ to save them from damnation : and I am sure they are Willing to be pardoned as fast as they sin , and that is , to be justified : and therefore must needs be Willing of Christ to pardon them ( supposing that they beleeve the Gospel to be true ) What therefore shall I say if a wicked wretch thus argue : He that hath the only justifying act of faith is justified : But that have I ; for I Accept of Christ to forgive and justifie me by his blood : Therefore , & c ? Shall I tell him that he dissembleth , and is not Willing ? Why 1. Long may I so tell him before he will beleeve me , when he feels that I speak falsly and slander him . 2. And I should know that I slander him my self : Supposing that he beleeve that there is no pardon but by Christs blood , ( as the devils and many millions of wicked men do beleeve : ) For I know no man in his wits can be willing to be unpardoned and to burn in hell . Shall I give him the common answer ( the best that ever was given to me , ) that though the only justifying act be the receiving Christ or his Righteousness to justifie us , yet this must be ever accompanied with the receiving him as Sovereign , and a resolution to obey him ? Perhaps I may so puzzle him for want of Logick or Reason ; but else how easily may he tell me , that this receiving Christ as Lord , hath either the nature of a medium ad finem , or not ? If it be no medium , the want of it in this case cannot hinder the Justification of that man that is sure he hath the sole justifying act it self : For as meer signs or idle concomitants do nothing to the effect , so the want of them hinders not the effect where all causes and means are present ▪ But if I say , that this act of faith is a means to Justification ; then I must either make it a Cause , or a Condition , or invent some new medium not yet known . But you say [ Soveraignty doth not cleanse us , nor doth blood command us . ] Ans . 1. How ill is Soveraignty put in stead of the Soveraign ? I say not that the reception of Christs Soveraignty doth ●ustifie ( those words may have an ill sense ) but we are justified by receiving Christ as our Soveraign ( which much differs from the former . ) 2. Christ as Soveraign doth cleanse us , both from the guilt and power of sinne , by actual Remission or Justification , and by Sanctification . 3. Suppose you speak true , as you do , if you mean it only of Meriting our cleansing : What is this to our Question ? But you adde [ Faith in his blood , not faith yeelding to his Soveraignty doth justifie us . ] Ans . This is something to the purpose , if it had been proved . But will a nude and crude Assertion change mens judgements ? or should you have expected it ? A text you cite , and therefore it might seem that you thought it some proof of this , Rom. 3.24 . But all the force of your Argument is from your dangerous addition , which , who will take for good Exposition ? The text faith , He is set forth to be a propitiation , through faith in his Blood. And you adde [ Not through faith in his Command . ] 1. Sed quo jure nescio . Your exclusion is either upon supposition , that faith in his Blood is equipollent to faith in his Blood only ; or else it is on some mysterious ground , which you should the rather have revealed , because it is not obvious to your ordinary Reader to discover it , without your revelation . If the former ; 1. By what authority do you adde [ only ] in your interpretation ? 2. Will you exclude also his Obedience , Resurrection , Intercession , & c ? When by the obedience of one many are made righteous ? and Rom. 8.33 , 34. It is God that justifieth , who is he that condemneth ? It is Christ that died , yea rather that is risen again ; who is even at the right hand of God , who also maketh intercession for us . 2. But the thing that you had to prove was not the exclusion of [ faith in his Command ] but of [ faith in Christ as Lord and Teacher ] or either : Receiving Christ as Ruler , goeth before the receiving of his particular Commands . And for the text , Rom. 3.24 . It was fittest for Paul to say [ by faith in his blood ] because he intends to connot● both what we are justified by , ex parte Christi , and what ex parte nostri , but the former p●incipally . I will explain my thoughts by a similitude or two . Suppose a Rebell be Condemned , and lye in prison waiting for Execution ; and the Kings Son being to raise an Army , buyeth this Rebell , with all his fellow prisoners , from the hand of Justice , and sendeth to them this message ; If you will thankfully acknowledge my favours , and take me hereafter for your Prince or General , and list your selves under me , I will pardon you ( or give you the pardon which I have purchased ) and moreover will give you places of Honour and Profit in my Army : ] Here now if the Question be , What it is on the Princes part that doth deliver the prisoner ? It is his ransom , as to the Impetration or Preparation : and it is his free-Grant , which doth it , as to the actual Deliverance . If it be askt What is it that Honoureth or Enricheth him ? It is the place of Honour and Riches that by the Prince is freely given him . But if you ask on the offenders part , What it is that delivereth him as the condition ? It is not his accepting Pardon and Deliverance ( or the Prince as a Pardoner or Ransomer ) that is the sole Condition of his pardon and deliverance from death : Nor is it the Accepting of the Honour ( or of the Prince as one to honour him ) that is the sole condition of his Honour : Nor is it accepting of Riches , that is the sole condition of enriching him . But it is entirely the accepting of the Prince for his General , and thankfull acknowledging his Ransom , that is the Condition of all together , and hath as near an interest in one part of the Benefit , as another . Or suppose the condemned prisoner be a woman , and the Prince having Ransomed her , doth send this offer to her , That if she will thankfully acknowledge his favour , and take him for her Redeemer and Husband and Prince ( to love , honour and obey him ) he will deliver her , and make her his Queen , and she shall partake of all his Honour and Riches . ] Here now if the Question be , What it is on his part that Redeemed her ? What that Delivered her ? What that honoured her ? What that enriched her ? each effect must be ascribed to its proper cause , and the causes not confounded : And she must distinctly apprehend , by what way and cause each priviledge comes . But if you ask only , What it is on her part that is the condition of enjoying these Benefits ? Why it is but one entire , undivided Condition before mentioned : Will you here subtilly distinguish and say , that her taking him to deliver her , is the sole act which is the condition of her Deliverance ? and her taking him to Dignifie her , is the sole condition of her Dignity ? and her taking him as Rich , or to enrich her , is the sole condition of her enriching ? No , It is one undivided condition that equally gives her interest in all . Much less is it the Accepting of his Riches , that is the sole condition of enriching her . Yet if any should in one Question include both , What on his part did save her from death ? and what on her part ? then it must be exprest as Paul did in the forementioned text , in our case : It is her Marrying or Accepting a Mercifull Redeemer . I should wrong you , by seeming to imply a doubt of your Apprehensiveness , if I should spend words in application of this to our case . Having been so much too tedious already , I will only adde ; That the common doctrine in this Point , requires that there be as many acts of faith as there are Benefits from Christ to be received ; and that each one is the Instrument of receiving that particular benefit : and so one act of faith Justifieth , another Adopteth , &c. And that act which receiveth Justification , which they call the Passive instrument thereof , in the upshot of all their Disputes they so describe , that it is apparent they mean ipsam Justificationem passivam : And so with them Credere & Justificari must be Synonimall termes : For so to receive Justification , is nothing but to be Justified . §. 2. Mr Bl. THere are several acts of Justifying faith , Heb. 11. but those are not acts of Justification . It is not Abrahams obedience , Moses self-deniall , Gideon or Sampsons valour , that were their Justification : but his Blood who did enable them in these duties by his spirit . Paul went in these duties as high as they , living in more clear light and under more abundant grace . I doubt not but he out-tapt them , and yet he was not thereby Justified ; as 1 Cor. 4.4 . §. 2. R. B. 1. IT is a strange phrase to call any act of faith [ An act of Justification . ] If you speak properly , you must mean it efficienter vel constitutivè : either that some act of faith is an act of Justification , as the efficient ( but that 's farre from truth , to beleeve and to justifie differ ) or else that it is an act constituting Justification : But that is as far from truth ; for then Credere should be Justificari . If you speak improperly , you must mean , either [ An act effecting Justification ] as it seems you do ; which is unsound , as well as improper : or else [ An act which is the Condition of Justification ] which is sound , though improper . 2. Who knows whether you mean that [ none of those acts , Heb. 11. are acts of Justification ] or [ not all of them ] The proper importance of your words is for the former . But that is a dangerous untruth : for vers . 13. is judged by our Divines to contain a proper description of justifying faith [ they saw the promises ( i. e. the good promised ) a farre off , and were perswaded of them , and embraced them , &c. ] But which soever you mean , you should have proved your assertion . It will be easily acknowledged that many there mentioned , were not the great and principall act which is the Condition of Justification , as begun : But yet they may be lesser acts which are secondary parts of the condition of continuing their Justification . I do not think but that act [ by which Noah became the heir of the righteousness which is by faith , ] v. 7. had a hand in continuing his Justification , though it were the preparing the Ark , being moved with fear . I think that act by which Abel obtained witnesse that he was righteous , and that by which Enoch pleased God , and without which it is impossible to please him , had some hand in Justification : I think these four great acts mentioned , v. 6. are part of the condition of Justification . 1. To beleeve that God is ( viz. that he is God , the Chief Good , the first and last , the principal efficient and Ultimate End , &c. ) 2. The diligent seeking of him . 3. Beleeving that he is a rewarder of them that do so . 4. Coming to him . ( If this be distinct from the second . ) When the holy Ghost doth of purpose in the whole Chapter set forth the glory and excellency of faith , I dare not be one that shall imagine that he speaks all this of a lower sort of faith , and quite left out the noblest part which justifieth , from his praises . 3. Yet you should not ( in my judgement ) have called [ Abrahams obedience , Moses self-denial , Gideons valour ] acts of Justifying faith : Are these acts of faith ? If you mean that these acts are fruits of faith , its true : Or if you mean that an act of faith did excite the soul to each of these acts , and so you mean not the obedience , valour , &c. but the act of faith which excited it , then you might call those acts of justifying faith : But if I had called valour and obedience so , I should have been blamed . 4. What mean you to say Obedience and Valour was not their Justification ? Do you think that any act of faith is Justification ? You mean ( if I may conjecture from your after-doctrine ) the instrument of Justification . 5. But then how come you to say next , that it is Christs blood ? The blood of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification , which improperly may be called also , the Matter of it : But I think it is neither our Justification formally , nor the instrument of it in proper speech . 6. But I thought the contest in your Dispute had been , Which is the justifying act of faith , and which not ? and therefore when you denied those in Heb. 11. to be acts of Justification ( which I am forced to interpret [ justifying acts ] ) I expected to finde the true act asserted ; but in stead of that I finde the opposite member , is [ The blood of Christ . ] Is this indeed the Controversie ? Whether it be [ Accepting Christ as Lord ] or [ the blood of Christ ] that justifieth ? Never was such a Question debated by me , in the way here intimated . I am wholly for you , if this be the doubt : It is Christs blood that justifieth meritoriously . But yet we are justified by faith too , as the condition of our interest in free Justification . And why should these two be put in opposition ? I lookt when you had asserted and well proved that it is not taking Christ as Lord , but only faith in his blood , that is the condition on our part , of our attaining Justification . 7. It would prove a hard task to make good , that there are several acts of justifying faith , by which we are not justified ; without flying to great impropriety of speech . By [ justifying faith ] you must mean , the Act , Habit , or renewed Faculty : If the act , then I think you will say , it is but one , or not many : Or at least every act , which is justifying faith , must needs be such as we are justified by : Or else why should that act be called [ justifying faith . ] 2. But I doubt not but you mean the habit : And then 1. you confess that the habit is [ justifying faith ] which is true ; not only as it helpeth to produce the act , but even as it is in it self ; But that will overthrow the doctrine of instrumentality . 2. It requireth another kinde of Disputing then I here meet with , to prove that acts and habits of mans soul , are of so different a nature , that where the acts are specifically distinct by the great distance and variety of objects , yet the habit producing all these is one and the same , and not distinct as the acts : and that obedience , self-denial and valour , are acts of the same habit of faith , as is the accepting an offered Christ . 3. If you should mean by [ justifying faith ] the faculty as sanctified , then all other acts of that faculty as sanctified , or of the Spirit there residing , might as well be called Acts of justifying faith . But I will not imagine that this is your sense . 8. 1 Cor. 4.4 . is nothing to our business . Paul was not his own justifier : Though he knew not matter of condemnation ( sensu Evangelico , for no doubt he knew himself to be a sinner ) yet that did not justifie him , because it is God only that is his Judge . Can you hence prove , that accepting Christ as Lord , is not the condition of our Justification ? Then you may prove the same of the accepting him as Saviour . For Paul knew nothing by himself , as if he were guilty of not performing the one or the other : yet was he not thereby justified . §. 3. Mr Bl. ●Ames indeed saith , that Abraham was justified by works , when he had offered Isaac his son on the Altar , Jam. 2.21 . but either there we must understand a working faith , with Piscator , Paraeus , Pemble , and confess that Paul and James handle two distinct questions , The one , Whether faith alone Justifies without works ? which he concludes in the Affirmative : The other , What faith justifieth ? Whether a working faith only , and not a faith that is dead and idle ? Or else I know not how to make sense of the Apostle , who streight inferres from Abrahams Justification by the offer of his son , And the Scripture was fulfilled , which saith , Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed to him for righteousness . How otherwise do these accord ? He was justified by works : and the Scripture was fulfilled , which saith , he was justified by faith ? §. 3. R. B. 1. IF James must use the term [ Works ] twelve times in thirteen verses , ( a thing not usual ) as if he had foreseen how men would question his meaning , and yet for all that we must beleeve that by [ Works ] James doth not mean [ Works ] it will prove as hard a thing to understand the Scripture , as the Papists would perswade us that it is : and that there is as great a necessity of a living deciding Judge . 2. Do but reade over all those verses , and put [ working-faith ] in stead of [ Works ] and try w●at sense you will make . 3. No doubt but Paul and James handle two distinct Questions ▪ but not the two that you here express . Paul speaks of Meritorious Works , which make the Reward of Debt , and not of Grace , if you will beleeve his own description of them , Rom. 4.4 . But James speaks of no such Works , but of such as have a consistency with Grace , and necessary subordination to it : I prove it : The Works that James speaks of , we must endeavour for and perform , or perish ( supposing time ) But the works that Paul speaks of , no man must endeavour , or once imagine that he can perform , viz. such as make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace . Paul speaks indeed of faith collaterally , but of Christs Merits and free-Grace , directly and purposely : So that the chief part of Pauls controversie was , Whether we are justified freely through Christs Merits ? or through our own meritorious Works ? But James's question is , Whether we are justified by faith alone , or by faith with obedience accompanying it ; and both as subordinate to Christs Merits ? Paul's question is , Of the meritorious Cause of our Justification : James's question is , Of the condition on our parts , of our interest in a free Remission ; supposing Pauls question determined , that Christ only is the Meriter . Paul speaks of Justification in toto , both in the beginning and progress , but especially the beginning : But James speaks only of Justification as continued and consummate , and not as begun : For both Abrahams and every mans was begun , before Works of Obedience : Though a disposition and resolution , and engagement to obey do go before . 4. If with the named Expositors , you understand by [ Works ] a working-faith ; either you grant as much as I affirm , in sense ; or else you must utterly null all the Apostle's arguing , from vers . 13. to the end . For if by [ Working-faith ] you suppose that James meant that God did not only make [ Faith it self ] to be the p●incipall condition , but also [ its Working ] in obedience , when there is opportunity , to be the secondary condition ( or part of the condition ) of Justification as continued ; as being the necessary modus , or effect ( both which it is in several respects ) then you say the same in sense as I do , only changing the Scripture terms without and against reason . It is ordinary to make the modus or quality of that matter which is the substance of the condition , to be as real a part of the condition as the matter it self . As when you oblige your Debtor to pay you so much currant English money ; it is here as necessary that it be [ English ] and [ Currant ] as that it be money . If you promise your servant his wages , on condition he serve you faithfully : here [ Faithfulness ] is as real a part of the Condition , as [ Service . ] If a man take a woman in Marriage , and estate her in all his Lands , on condition that she will be to him [ a chast , faithfull Wife : ] here her chast fidelity is as true a part of the condition , as to be his Wife . So if God say , [ He that hath a Working faith shall be justified and saved , and he that hath not , shall perish . ] Here as faith is the principall part of the condition , so that it be a [ Working ] is the secondary , and as real a part of the condition , as that it be faith . And if Satan accuse you for not-beleeving ( at Judgement ) you must be justified , by producing your faith it self , so if he accuse you as having a faith that was not Working ; how will you be justified but by the Works or Working disposition of that faith ? 5. As for your single Argument here , I answer , 1. It is a weak ground to maintain that James twelve times in thirteen verses , by [ Works ] means not [ Works ; ] and by faith alone ( which he still opposeth ) doth not mean faith alone , and all this because you cannot see the connexion of one verse to the former , or the force of one cited Scripture . Others may see it , and be able to shew sense in the Apostles words , though you or I could not . If every time we are at a losse in analysing or discerning the reason of a cited Text , we shall presume to make so great an alteration , meerly to bring all to hang together in our apprehensions , we shall finde Analyzers the greatest corrupters of Scripture . It is easie to imagine and fain a false Analysis with much plausibleness . I conceive that James citeth these words expositorily : q. d. [ And thus or in this sense the Scripture was fulfilled , i e. historically , spoke truly of that which was long before done , Abraham beleeved God , i. e. so as to second his faith with actual obedience , and it ( i. e. beleeving and so obeying , or trusting Gods promise and power so farre as to offer his son to death ) was imputed to him , &c. 2. Or why may not James by concession preoccupate an objection ? knowing that this would be objected he might say , q. d. I grant that the Scripture was fulfilled , which saith , &c. but yet though he were initially justified by faith only , yet when he was called to works , he was justified also by his obedience . 3. And is it not as hard to discern the reason of this citation , according to your exposition as mine ? For you may as well say , [ How do these accord , He was justified by a working faith : and The Scripture was fulfilled which saith , He was justified by faith ? ] For James is not proving that Abraham was justified by faith , and yet this is it the Text speaks : but that he was justified by works seconding faith , or , as you say , by a Working-faith : Where , if you put any emphasis on the term [ Working ] and account it to superadde any thing to meer beleeving , you say as much as I ; and then James must cite that Text expositorily ; and then whether according to my exposition or yours , varies not the case , seeing one saith as much for Works as the other . But I suppose you will say , Faith which justifieth must be working ; but it justifieth not qua operans . Ans . 1. True : nor qua fides , i. e. quâ apprehendit objectum , if the quâ speaks the formall reason of its interest in Justification . 2. But why cannot faith justifie unless it be working ? If you say [ Because that God hath made it the condition of Justification , that we beleeve with a working faith ] and so that it be working is part of the Condition , you say the same in sense as I. If you say , either that working is necessary as a sign , that faith is true ; or that the nature of true faith will work ; both are truth : but to say this is the Apostle's sense , is to null all his Argumentation : For he pleads not for a meer necessity of signification or discovery , but for a necessity ut medij ad Justificationem ; even that Justification which he cals [ Impu●ing of Righteousness ] and that by God. And he argueth not only Physically , what the nature of faith will produce ; but morally , what men must do to such ends . And it is only as a condition that faith or its working nature can be necessary ad finem ut media moralia ; if you speak of such an absolute necessity as the Text doth . §. 4. Mr Bl. ALL works before or after conversion , inherent in us , or wrought by us , are excluded from Justification . §. 4. R. B. 1. THe term [ Works ] signifieth either such as a Workman doth to deserve his wages for the value of his Work ; which make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace ; and so its true : Or it signifieth all good actions ; and so this saying is contrary to the scope of the Scripture . 1. Faith and Repentance are such works and wrought by us . 2. James asserteth the inclusion of such works . If you say , But faith and repentance justifie not as Good works : I easily grant it : That they be Good , floweth from the Precept : That they Justifie , floweth from the Promise , constituting them the Condition . If they should justifie because Good , their goodness must be such as may accrue to a Meritoriousness● But yet they must be Good , before they can justifie as Conditions of the free Gift : yea and have a peculiar eminent goodness , consisting in their aptitude to this work , and to Glorifie the free Justifier . Mat. 25. Rom. 2. James 2. with the greatest part of Scripture , look not with such a face as your Proposition . This may serve to your following words . §. 5. Mr Bl. ANd these things considered , I am truly sorry that faith should now be denied to have the office or place of an instrument in our Justification : nay scarce allowed to be called the instrument of our receiving Christ that justifies us ; because the act of faith ( which is that which justifieth us ) is our actual receiving Christ , and therefore cannot be the instrument of receiving . This is too subtle a Notion : We use to speak otherwise of faith . Faith is the eye of the soul whereby we see Christ , and the eye is not ●ight . Faith is the hand of the soul , whereby it receives Christ , and the hand is not receiving . And Scripture speaks otherwise : We receive remission of sins by faith , and an inheritance among them that are sanctified is received by faith , Act. 18.26 . Why else is this righteousness sometime called the righteousness of faith , and sometime the righteousness of God which is by faith , but that it is a righteousness which faith receives ? Christ dwels in us by faith , Eph. 3.17 . By faith we take him in and give him entertainment : We receive the promise of the Spirit through faith , Gal. 3.14 . These Scriptures speak of faith as the souls instrument to receive Christ Jesus , to receive the Spirit from Christ Jesus . §. 5. R. B. 1. I Know not how to meddle with Controversies , but some body will be sorry or angry , which side soever I take . I am sorry that I have made you sorry , but not for that Doctrine which caused it ; which yet I shall be , as soon as I can see cause for it . 2. Why would you not here attempt to prove , that which you are so sorry should be denied , viz. That faith is the instrument of Justification ? Will all your Readers take your complaint for a demonstration of the errour of what you complain of ? 3. I was as sorry that men called , and so called faith the instrument of Justification , as you are that I deny it : And as your sorrow urged you to publish it , so did mine urge me . And my sorrow had these causes ( which I am content may be well compared with yours , that it may appear which were the juster and greater . ) 1. No Scripture doth either in the letter or sense call faith an instrument of Justification . 2. I knew I had much Scripture and reason against it . 3. I thought it of dangerous consequence , to say , that man i● the efficient cause of justifying and pardoning himself , and so doth forgive his own sins . 4. Yet all this had never caused m● to open my mouth against it ( for I truly abhor the making of new quarrels . ) But for the next , viz. I found that many Learned Divines did not only assert this instrumentality , but they laid so great a stresse upon it , as if the main difference between us and the Papists lay here . For in the doctrine of Justification , say they , it is that they Fundamentally erre , and we Principally differ : And that in these four Points . 1. About the formall cause of our Righteousness , which , say these Divines , is the formall Righteousness of Jesus Christ , as suffering and perfectly obeying for us ( or as others adde , In the habitual Righteousness of his humane nature ; and others , The natural Righteousness of the Divine nature . 2. About the way and manner of our participation herein , which as to Gods act , they say is imputation ( which is true ) and that in this sense , that Legaliter we are esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ . 3. About the nature of that faith which Justifieth , which , say most of our forreign Reformers , is an assurance , or full perswasion of the pardon of my sins by Christs blood . 4. About the formal reason of faiths interest in Justification , which , say they , is as the instrument thereof . I doubt not but all these four are great Errors . Yet for these must we contend as the Reformed Religion ; and here must lye the difference between us and the Papists . That which troubled me was this : To think how many thousand might be confirmed in Popery by this course , and what a blow it gave to the Reformed Religion . For who can imagine but that the young Popish Students will be confirmed in the rest of their Religion , when they finde that we erre in these ? and will judge by these of the rest of our Doctrine ? Especially when they finde us making this the main part of the Protestant Cause , what wonder ▪ if they judge our Cause naught ? This is no fancy , nor any needless fears , but such a real blow to the Protestant Cause , as will not easily be healed . Had Divines only in a way of freedom used this phrase , and not made it so great a part of our Religion , to the hazarding of the whole , I had never mentioned the unsoundness or other inconvenience of it . Now to the thing it self , Your Arguments for faiths instrumentality to Justification , I will consider when I can finde them : You begin with ( and say more for ) faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ . You can say no more of me concerning this , but that [ it will be scarce allowed to be so called . ] This intimates that I make it no matter of contention : nor do I know how I could have said less , if any thing ; when it s only the unfitness or impropriety of the phrase that I mention , and not the sense : which I thought with so much tenderness I might do , upon reason given , it being no Scripture phrase . If faith be the instrument of receiving Christ , then it is either the Act or the Habit of Faith that is the instrument : They that say , the Habit is the instrument , speak not properly , but far more tolerably then the others do . If gracious Habits are properly called instruments of the soul , then so may other Habits : And why is not this language more in use among Logicians ? if it be so unquestionably proper ? But I perceive it is the Act of faith that you call the instrument : for you answer only to what I say against that . I drew up a Scheme of the several sorts of Giving and Receiving , in Answer to another Learned Brother : which , for the necessity of distinguishing here , I would have added , but that so operous a Reply would be unsutable to your brief Exceptions . Receiving strictly taken is ever Passive : Receiving in a Civil , Ethical , less proper sense , is but the Act of accepting what is offered : When it is only a Relation , or Jus ad rem that is offered , Consent or Acceptance is an act so necessary ordinarily to the possession ( or proper Passive reception ) that it is therefore called Receiving it self : yet is indeed no efficient cause of the Passive reception or possession : but a conditio fine qua non , and a subjective disposition ; and so makes the subject capable of the benefit : but being no efficient it can be no instrument . Yet still I say , that if any will please to call it an instrument in this sense , I will not quarrel with him , for the impropriety of a phrase ; specially if some men had the same ingenuity as others have , that say , it is but instrumentum metaphoricum . But to say , that the act of faith is the instrument of Ethical Active reception ( which is it that I argued against , ) is to say , Receiving Christ is the instrument of it self . Now let 's see what you say to this . 1. You say , It s too subtill a Notion : That deserves no Reply . 2. You say [ We use to speak otherwise of faith . ] That 's no proof that you speak properly . You say [ Faith is the eye of the soul ; and the eye is not sight . Faith is the hand , &c. ] Ans . 1. Strange proof ! not only by Metaphors , but by metaphors of meer humane use . 2. Is the act of faith the eye of the soul as distinct from sight ? and the hand as distinct from receiving ? Tell us then what actual seeing and receiving is ? To speak metaphors and contradictions is no proving your Assertion . Next you say [ Scripture speaks otherwise . ] That 's to the purpose indeed , if true . You cite , Act. 18.26 . where is no such matter . If [ By ] signifie an instrumentall cause , It is either Alwaies or Sometimes : You would not sure have your Reader believe that it is Alwaies . If but sometimes , Why do you take it for granted that it so signifies here ? Why did you not offer some proof ? This is easie Disputing . Next you say [ Why else is this Righteousness sometime called the Righteousness of faith ? Sometimes the Righteousness of God which is by faith ; but that it is a Righteousness which faith receives ? ] Ans . 1. It s properer to say , Credens recipit credendo , The Believer by beleeving receives it : Then to say , Faith ( especially the act ) receives it : But if you will use that speech , it must express but formalem rationem credendi expositorily , and not the efficiency of faith , and therefore no instrumentality . It is the Righteousness of God by faith , because God gives it freely ( Christ having merited it ) upon condition of mans faith . You adde [ Eph. 3.17 . Christ dwels in us by faith . By faith we take him in , &c. ] Ans . You odly change the question : We are speaking of faiths instrumentality in receiving Right to Christ , or Christ in relation : and you go about to prove the reception of his Spirit , or graces really , or himself objectively : For Christ is said to dwell in us , 1. By his Spirit and Graces . 2. Objectively , as my friend dwels in my heart when I love him . The text being meant of either of these , is nothing to the purpose . 2. Yet here you do not prove that [ by ] signifieth a proper instrument : no more then your actual intellection is said to be the instrument of Truths abode in you ; when it is said that Truth dwelleth in you by intellection . The same Answer serves to your following words about receiving the Spirit . 1. It s nothing to our Question . 2. You give us but your bare word that Scripture speaks of faith as the souls instrument , even in receiving the Spirit of Christ , much less in receiving Right to Christ . But still remember that from first to last , I profess not to contend with any about the use of this phrase , of faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ . It is its being really the proper instrumentall efficient cause of Justification , which I denied , and resolvedly more then ever do deny . This you next come to , and say , §. 6. Mr Bl. THe instrumentality of it in the work of Justification is denied , because the nature of an Instrument ( as considered in Physical operations ) doth not exactly belong to it ; which if it must be alwaies rigidly followed , will often put us to a stand in the assignation of causes of any kinde in Moral actions . The material and formal causes in Justification are scarce agreed upon , and no marvell then in case men minde to contend about it , that some question is raised about the Instrument . But in case we shall consider the nature and kinde of this work , about which faith is imploied , and examine the reason and ground , upon the which faith is disabled from the office of an instrument in our Justification , and withall look into that which is brought in as an instrument in this work in the stead of it , I do not doubt but it will easily appear , that those Divines , that with a concurrent judgement ( without almost a dissenting voice , have made faith an instrument in this work ) speak most aptly , and most agreeably to the nature of an instrument . §. 6. R. B. BUt is this certain ? Do I therefore deny faith to be the instrument of Justification , because the nature of an instrument [ as considered in Physical operations ] doth not exactly belong to it ? I said 1. The action of the principal Cause and of the instrument is one action . Is not this true of moral operations as well as Physical ? If it be not , you must make us a new Logick before you can reasonably expect that we receive your Logical Theology . 2. I said , the instrument must have Influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause , by a proper causality : that is , in suo genere . Is not this true of Moral operations as well as Physical ? It s true , Moral causes may be said to have a less proper causation then Physical : But 1. The instrumental must be as proper as that of the principal . 2. There is a wide difference between , causam Moralem , and causam Moralitatis . Effecti naturalis potest esse causa moralis , vel imputativa : Et effecti moralis scilicet Ethici , ( ut Debiti , Juris , Meriti , ) potest esse causa remotior naturalis . It may well be called a proper causation , when the effect is produced by as full a causation as the nature of the thing will admit ( as in relations that are by meer resultancy . ) 2. You say [ the material and formal causes of Justification are scarce agreed on . ] But doth that give you a liberty to assert what you list , or what cannot be proved true , because all men see not the truth ? I should have thought you should rather have thus concluded : [ Seeing Divines themselves cannot agree about the assignation of these Logical , unscriptural notions in the business of Justification , therefore it is a meer Church-dividing course , to place so much of the Protestant Cause in such notions , and insist upon them as matters of such necessity and weight , as is done in asserting faiths instrumentality to Justification . ] Your argument ( in the issue and tendency ) is like that of plundering souldiers in time of fight ; that say , Now they are altogether by the ears , we may take that we light on : why should they question us , till they agree among themselves ? 3. Whether this phrase be so apt as you affirm , we shall better know when you have said something to prove it . If Divines have been so concurrent in it as you say , that there is scarce a dissenting voice , I hope I am the more excusable , if it prove an error , for opposing it : For it is pity to let so many mistake themselves , mislead others , and make us part of a new Religion . But Sir , what 's the cause of this sudden change ? Through their great condescension , I have received Animadversions from many of the most Learned , Judicious Divines that I know in England : And of all these , there is but one man that doth own the Doctrine of faiths Instrumentality ; but they disclaim it all ; some with distast , others with a modest excuse of them that use it , and the gentle interpretation of [ a Metaphorical instrument ] and that remote : for so they would have me interpret our Divines . I told you this when I saw you , and you asked me , Whether Mr C. were against it ? To which I Answer , Not so much as divers others that write to me ; but judge you by his own words , which are these , [ Obj. But though faith be not the instrument of our Justification , may it not be called the instrument of receiving Christ ? Ans . I think they mean so and no more , who call faith the instrument of our Justification , &c. I shall not be unwilling to yield to you , that to speak exactly , faith may better be called a Condition , then an Instrument of our Justification . ] So far Mr C. §. 7. Mr Bl. THe work about which faith is imploied , is not an absolute , but a relative work : a work of God towards man : not without the actual concurrence of man : such in which neither God nor man are sole efficients ; nor any act of God or man can be sole instruments ; but there must be a mutual concurrence of both . §. 7. R. B. A Dangerous Doctrine , in my Judgement , to be so nakedly affirmed : No doubt but Justification is a Relative change : and it is past Controversie , that it is not without the actual concurrence of man : for he must perform the Condition , on which God will justifie him : But that God is not the sole Efficient , nor any * Act of God , the sole Instrument , I durst not have affirmed without proof : and much less have undertaken to prove . §. 8. Mr Bl. THis must needs be granted , unless we will bring in D r Crispes passive recipiency of Christ : Christs abode in man without man , in spite of man , and suppose him to be justified in unbelief . §. 8. R. B. THis is very naked asserting . Why did you not shew some reason of this ill consequence ? It s past my reach to see the least . 2. Why do you still confound Christs real abode in us by his Spirit , with the relation we have upon Justification ? when even now you affirmed , it was a relative work ( as you call it ) I pray , by the next shew us more clearly , how these absurdities follow that doctrine which affirmeth , That God is the sole Efficient cause of our Justification , but having made mans Belief and Consent the Condition ( whose nature is to suspend the effect , till performed ) he will not justifie us till we first believe and consent . This is my Doctrine plainly . §. 9. Mr Bl. ANd faith is disabled from this office in Justification , by this Argument : If faith be an instrument , it is the instrument of God or man , &c. I Ans . It is the instrument of man : and though man do not justifie himself , yet he concurres , as a willing ready Agent with God in it . God is a justifier of those that beleeve in Jesus , Rom. 3.26 . God hath set Christ forth a propitiation through faith , Rom. 3.25 . §. 9. R. B. IF this be not palpable contradiction , saying and unsaying , my Logick is less then I thought it had been . If it be [ Mans instrument ] of Justification ; and yet [ Man do not justifie himself . ] Then either Man is not Man , or an Instrument is not an Instrument , or Justifying is not Justifying . Had you only affirmed it to be mans act , and Gods instrument ( how absurd soever otherwise yet ) you might have said , Man doth not justifie himself . But if it be mans instrument , then man is the principal cause ( in respect of the instrumentall . ) For omne instrumentum est causae principalis instrumentum . And can he be the efficient cause , and yet not effect ? Is not that to be a Cause and no Cause ? In my judgement this doctrine should not be made part of our Religion ; nor much stress laid on it if it were true ; because it s so obscure : That man concurres as a ready Agent , who doubts ? but doth that prove him or his faith the efficient cause of his own pardon and Justification ? Is the performer of the condition of [ Gratefull consent ] no willing Agent , unless an efficient Cause ? The text you cite doth not speak of instruments , for ought I can finde . §. 10. Mr Bl. ANd because it is the instrument of man in a work of this nature , it is also the instrument of God. As some have observed a communication of Titles between Christ and his Church ( the Church being called by his Name ) so there is a communication of actions in these relative works . Christ dwels in our hearts by faith , Eph. 3.17 . We believe and not Christ : and yet faith there is Christs instrument , whereby he takes up his abode . God purifies the hearts of the Gentiles by faith , Act. 15.17 . They believed and not God : yet faith is Gods instrument in the work of their purification . So on the other side , the Spirit is Gods work : yet we by the Spirit do mortifie the deeds of the flesh , Rom. 8.13 . §. 10. R. B. IF this be indeed true , That it is mans instrument of Justification and Gods both ; then both God and man are both Causae principales partiales , by coordination making up one principal cause . This I hope you will not downright affirm : I deny it on this reason : Every absolute Donor ( I mean , who is absolutely owner of what he gives ) is the totall cause-efficient-principal , of his own Donation : But God in justifying is an absolute Donor ( giving remission and Righteousness ) Therefore , &c. 2. Or else God and man must be principal causes one subordinate to the other , and each total in his own kinde . This must be your meaning , by your first words : But then which of these is the most principal cause , and which the subordinate ? It is hard for a better wit then mine to know your minde by your words : For when you say [ Because it is mans instrument , it is also Gods instrument . ] It may seem that you take it to be mans instrument first , or else how can it be therefore Gods instrument [ because ] it is mans ▪ But yet whether you speak de ordine consequentis vel consequentiae , de ordine essendi & efficiendi , vel de ordine dicendi & colligendi , I know not . However , I will not be so uncharitable as to imagine that you take man for the most principal cause , and God for the subordinate ; but contrarily . But then you do not only make man the pardoner and justifier of himself , but you make him the nearest total cause of it : and so it would be as proper to say , Man forgives himself , as that God forgives him : And so faith would be only mans instrument directly , as being the nearest cause-principal ; and Gods instrument remotely . As if I hold my pen , and you hold my hand , the pen is proximè my instrument , and remotiùs yours . And so God should justifie and pardon man , by himself , as Gods instrument : As if a Judge had committed Treason , and the King should give him authority to Judge , Pardon and Absolve himself . But how much might be said against this ? To justifie efficienter is actus Rectoris : Sed homo non est rector sui ipsius ( in the sense in hand : ) Therefore he cannot justifie himself . Indeed if you had spoke only of the Justification in soro conscientiae you might well have ascribed it to man as the efficient cause : but that you speak not of . 2. The communication of Titles that you speak of , is 1. very rare . 2. Uncertain whether at all found in Scripture . That Text 1 Cor. 12.12 . seemeth rather to leave out [ the Church ] as understood , then to communicate Christs Name to it : q. d. [ So is Christ and the Church . ] I would advise all friends of mine to take heed that they presume not on this slight ground to communicate Christs Name to the Church in their ordinary speech . 3. But who can tell what you mean by a communication of actions ? Your putting [ Communication of actions ] in contradistinction from [ Communication of Titles ] makes the proper sense of your words be , that Christ doth as really communicate actions themselves , as he doth Titles themselves . But that is no better then a plain impossibility : For the communication will make it another action . The accident perisheth , when separated from its subject : and therefore the same accident cannot be communicated . But it s like you intended to have said , That there is a common or mutual attribution of each others actions , or one is entitled to the actions of the other ; and so mean only a communication of the Name quoad modum producendi , and not of the actions themselves . But then , either this is an improper figurative way of speech ; or it is proper , and grounded in the nature of the thing . If the former , then it is nothing to our Question , who are not enquiring whether there may not be found some Figure in Rhetorick according to which faith may be said to be mans instrument of Justification and Gods ? but whether it be so properly and indeed ? And if you could finde any Scripture that so speaks figuratively , calling faith mans instrument and Gods in justifying ; ( as you cannot ) this would do nothing to the deciding of our Controversie . It is therefore a grounded attribution that you must prove , where there is also a real instrumentality , and so the Name fitted to the Thing . And how prove you this ? Why , as before , Eph. 3.17 . you say , [ We beleeve and not Christ ; yet faith is Christs instrument , whereby he takes up his abode . ] But this is too facil disputing to satisfie . 1. Here is not a word to prove that it is a relative In-dwelling that is here spoken of . I need not tell you how singular you are in this Exposition ( if you so expound : If not , you say nothing . ) 2. If that had been proved , yet here is no proof that [ by ] signifieth instrumentality . 3. Much less that it is Christs instrument . How easily are all these affirmed ? I think Christ dwels in our hearts , as I said , 1. By his Spirit and Graces ; and so he is said to dwell in us [ by faith . ] 1. Formaliter , faith being the principal part of that grace which dwelleth in us . 2. Conditionaliter , Faith being a condition of our right to the Spirits abode . 3. Efficienter , as the act of faith doth directly cause the increase , and so the abode of the habit ; and also as it exciteth other graces . If you will call this efficiency an instrumental efficiency , I think it is no proper speech : We do not use to call the act of intellection , Mans instrument of knowing or increasing the habits of knowledge : but I will not contend with you about this : Nor yet if you say , This act of beleeving is Mans instrument ( of exciting and increasing grace in himself ) directly , and Gods instrument remotely : As my pen is immediatly my instrument , and remotely his that holds my hand . Or rather I should say , as my action in writing is improperly called my instrument , and his . And thus man may be said ( yea more properly then thus ) to sanctifie himself , and God to sanctifie man by himself : But in Justification the matter is far otherwise : Man doth neither Justifie himself , nor God justifies man by himself . The second way of Christs dwelling in us , is Objectively . And here if you will speak so improperly , as to say that mans act of believing is his instrument of receiving Christ as an Object , or of the Objects abode in the soul , I will not con●end with you about it : Only as I would desire you to make this phrase no great part of Religion , nor lay too great a stress upon it , so also to remember , 1. That it is but the species and not Christ himself that is objectively received , and thus dwelleth in us . 2. That every other grace that hath Christ for its object , is thus far an instrument of receiving him , and of his abode in us , as well as faith ▪ but none so properly and fully as knowledge . And 3. That thus Christ dwels objectively in every wicked man that thinketh of him : Though doubtlesse not in that deep and speciall manner as in his chosen . 3. And yet further , as a consequent of the first sort of indwelling , Christ himself may be said to dwell in us C●viliter , vel Moraliter , that is , Reputativè , because his Spirit or Graces dwell in us Naturaliter : As a man that keeps possession of a house by his son or servant , or by his goods : And here also , if you have a minde to the term Instrument , you may , for me , say that Christ keeps possession by faith or the Spirit as his instruments : But then you must consider , 1. That this is by no communication of Actions and Titles : but here is a real ground for this speech . 2. That it is not faith a mans act , but faith as Gods grace wrought and maintained in us , by which he may in this sense be said to dwell in us , or keep possession of us . 3. That thus every grace may as truly be said to be Christs instrument of possession or indwelling , as faith : so he dwelleth in us by love , hope , trust , desire , joy , &c. but most properly by the Spirit or new Creature , or whole body at Sanctification . 4 That all this is nothing to prove faith to be mans instrument and Gods ( yea or either alone ) to effect our Justification . The same answer serves to Act. 15.17 . God purifieth mans heart by faith : 1. From the power of sin , and that is by faith : 1. Formaliter . 2. Efficienter , as is before expressed . 2. From the guilt of sin ; and that is by faith as a condition on mans part ( and not as an instrument : ) By or through which God is said to purifie or pardon us ; 1. In that he conferreth remission only on this condition ; and so doth constitute the formall office of faith in justifying . 2. In that by his Spirit he causeth or giveth saith it self , and effecteth the matter . Though , whether this Text reach to Justification , I will not Dispute . So that you do but nakedly affirm , and not prove that faith is Gods instrument or mans in justifying . Lastly to what you say from Rom. 8.13 . I reply , 1. An Ad●utor or Concause is ill called an instrument . Must the Spirit needs be our instrument , because it is [ By ] the Spirit ? As if [ Byj signified only an instrument ? 2. All this is nothing to the business of Justification . Prove but this , that man is as true an efficient of his own pardon or Justification , as he is of mortifying the deeds of the body , or of Progressive Sanctification , and you shall carry the Cause : I will not then contend whether the term [ instrument ] be proper or improper . §. 11. Mr Bl. MAn neither justifies nor sanctifies himself , yet by faith he is raised to close with God in both : And so faith as an instrument receives Righteousness to Justification : and therefore is called , The righteousness of faith , which is our Justification , and works Sanctification ; provided you understand not the first work , which is properly Regeneration , and precedent to saith ; but the further progress and increase of it , &c. §. 11. R. B. 1. IF man justifie not himself , and yet faith be his instrument of justifying , then farewell old Logick . 2. If man sanctifie not himself , under God , as to the progress and acts of sanctification , then farewell old Theology . God bids men wash them , and purifie their hearts , and cleanse their hands , and make them new hearts , &c. and Peter saith , Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit , &c. 1 Pet. 1.22 . And we must cleanse our selves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit , perfecting holiness in the fear of God , 2 Cor. 7.1 . with many the like . 3. [ To close with God ] in pardoning me , signifieth not that I pardon my self , or that I or any act of mine is an efficient cause of pardon . 4. When you say , that [ Faith as an instrument receiveth righteousness to Justification ] you speak exactly the conceptions of most Divines that I have met with , or read , that go your way ; and therefore these words deserve a little further consideration . Their meaning , as far as I can understand of the whole business is this : 1. They conceive of Christs own righteousness , wherewith himself was righteous , as given to us . 2. They conceive of the act of faith , as the instrument of receiving this . 3. Upon the receiving of this , they conceive we are justified , as a man that receiveth Riches is Rich , or that receiveth Honour is Honourable . 4. Because faith is the instrument of receiving righteousness , therefore say they , It is the instrument of Justification . For Justification Constitutivè , is but a relation resulting from righteousness received . This is the summe of the common judgement of most that I have read . But these things must be more accurately considered , I think . And 1. It must be known , that the Righteousness given us , is not the Righteousness whereby Christs person was Righteous : ( for accidents perish being removed from the subject : ) but it is a Righteousness merited by Christs satisfaction and obedience , for us . 2. It must needs be known that the faith which is the Justifying condition , is terminated on Christ himself as the object , and not on his Righteousness which he gives us in Remission : Remission or Righteousness may be the end of the sinner in receiving Christ ; but Righteousness or Remission is not the object received by that act which is made the condition of Justification : or at least but a secondary remote object ; even as a woman doth not marry a mans Riches , but the Man ; though it may be her end in marrying the man , to be enriched by him : nor is her receiving his riches the condition of her first Legal right to them ; but her taking the man for her husband . And as a Patient being promised to be cured , if he will take such a man for his Physitian , and wholly trust him , renouncing all other : Here it is not receiving Health , or a Cure that is the proper Condition of the Cure : Health and Cure is the end for which the Physitian is Accepted and Trusted : but it is himself as a sufficient faithfull Physitian which is the object of that receiving , which is the condition of the Cure. The like may be shewed in other Relations , of a Master and Scholar , Prince and Subjects , Master and Servants , &c. Receiving the persons into relation , from whom we expect the benefit , goes before receiving the benefit it self by them ; which is usually the remote end , and not the object of that first reception which is the condition . Our Divines therefore of the Assembly do perfectly define justifying faith to be , A receiving and resting on Christ alone for salvation , as he is offered in the Gospel . It is of dangerous consequence to define justifying Faith to be the Receiving of Justification or Righteousness . 3. In my judgement , it is a meer fancy and delusion , to speak of the receiving a righteousness that we may be justified Constitutivè thereby , in such a sense , as if the righteousness were first to be made ours , in order of nature before our Justification , and then Justification follow because we are righteous ; and so these were two things : For to receive Righteousness , and to receive Justification is one thing . Gods justifying us , and pardoning our sin , and his constituting us righteous , and his giving us righteousness , is all one thing under severall notions . Yet as God giveth , 1. Conditionally . 2. Actually : so man receiveth , 1. Receptionè Ethica activâ , figuratively called receiving . 2. Receptione Physica , propriâ , passivâ : The former goes before Justification : but only as a small , and secondary part of the condition , if properly any ( it being the accepting of Christ himself that is the main condition : ) The later is nothing at all but Justificari , commonly called , Passive Justification . 4. Christs Satisfaction or Redemption ( solvend● pretium ) and merit , cannot be properly received by us : For they are not in themselves given to us ( but as Tropically they may be said to be given to us , because the fruit of them is given us . ) It was not to us , but to God , that Christ gave satisfaction , and the price of our Redemption . And yet justifying faith doth as necessarily respect Christs satisfaction and merit , as it doth our Justification thereby procured . It is therefore the acknowledging of this Redemption , Satisfaction or Merit , and the receiving of Christ as one that hath redeemed us by satisfaction and merit , and not the receiving that Redemption or Satisfaction our selves . To say therefore , that the justifying act of faith , is only the receiving of Christs Righteousness or of Justification , is to exclude the receiving of Christ himself any way ; even to exclude him as satisfier from the justifying act : and to exclude from that act , his Redemption , by bloodshed , satisfaction and merit : For if it be only the receiving of righteousness , that is the justifying act , then it is neither the receiving of Christ himself , nor yet the acknowledgement of his Satisfaction and Redemption by his blood ; and so they must say of these as they do of the reception of Christ as Lord , that it is the fides quae justificat , sed non quà justificans . 5. If faith shall be said to be the instrument of Justification eo nomine , because it is the receiving of that Righteousness whereby we are justified , then it will follow that faith must also be called the instrument of our enjoying Christ , eo nomine , because it receiveth him , and the instrument of our Adoption , eo nomine , because it receiveth Adoption ; and so the same act of faith which entitles us to Justification , doth not entitle us to any other blessing ; nor that act that entitles us to Christ , doth entitle us to Justification ( unless there be several justifying acts : ) but every particular mercy hath a particular act of faith as the instrument of receiving it : which is no Scripture doctrine . 6. It must be remembred that the thing that faith receives naturally and properly , is not Christ himself , or his righteousness ; but the species of what is represented as its object . And that faiths reception of Christ himself and his righteousness , or of right to Christ , is but Receptio metaphorica ; vel actio ad receptionem propriam necessaria : and that the true reception , which is pati , non agere , doth follow faith , and therefore Christ himself is received only Receptione fidei ethicâ , activâ , metaphoricâ : Species Christi predicati recipiatur receptione naturali , intelligendo : J●● ad Christum recipitur receptione naturali passivâ , propriâ : That which is conditionally given ( on condition of acceptance or the like ) and offered to be accepted ; this is received , Receptione fidei ethicâ : whereupon followeth the actual efficacious giving of that thing , ( the condition being performed , which suspended it : ) and this the beleever receiveth , Receptione passivâ , propriâ ; but it is not his Faith that receiveth it . 7. The great thing therefore that I would desire to be observed is this ; that though faith were an instrument of the foresaid objective , or of the Ethical , Metaphorical recption of Christ ( which yet is not properly , being ipsa Receptio , ) yet it is not therefore the instrumental cause of the passive , proper reception of Right to Christ or Righteousness . Of this it is only the condition and not the proper instrument . ( For I shall shew hereafter that it is impossible it should be both : ) It doth morally qualifie the subject to be a fit patient to be justified , as M. Benjam . Woodbridge saith truly , in his excellent Sermon of Justification . The reason of this is , That it is only Donation or the will of the Donor signified , that can efficiently convey a right to his own Benefits . The Receiver is not the Giver , and therefore not the conveyer of Right . Every instrument is an efficient cause , and therefore must effect : and it is only giving that effecteth this right . Now if the giving ( the donation ) had been absolute , it had absolutely conveyed right ; and faith would have had no hand in it , as being no condition : Or if the gift had constituted another condition , that other would have had the causing interest that faith now hath ( ut causa siue qua non . ) So that the the nearest and formal interest of faith is , It s being the condition ; and its apprehension of its object , is but the remote aptitudinal reason , being ipsa fides . The great thing therefore that I affirm is this , That if you will needs call faith the instrument of apprehending Christ , or righteousness , yet doth it not justifie proximè & formaliter , As such ; but As the condition of the gift performed . 8. And if you will speak improperly , and call faith as it is the performed-condition [ instrumentum Receptionis ] it is not therefore instrumentum Justificationis : In a few words , thi● is the summe : 1. Faith is an Ethical , Metaphorical reception of Christ . 2. If any will speak so improperly as to call this , The instrument of this Ethical reception ; I will not contend with him . 3. This Ethical reception Active , is constituted by Christs Testament , the condition of Passive proper reception of Right to Christ , and with him to his Benefits . Faith must first be faith , i. e. apprehensio Christi , in order of nature before it can be the condition of Right . 4. It justifies therefore quâ conditio , and not quâ fides in Christum : or as they improperly speak , quâ instrumentum Christum apprehendens . 5. If any will take the word Instrument so improperly and largely , as to comprehend the condition , then you may so further say , [ Faith is not only the instrument of Active reception , but of true Passive reception of Right to Christ , and so of receiving Justification . ] 6. But this is quâ conditio pr●stita , and not qua apprehensio Christi . 7. And therefore every act that is part of this condition , may so be called , instrumentum recipiendi . 8. And if it were , as they would have it , that faith is the instrument eo nomine quia Christum apprehendit , then every grace that apprehendeth Christ must be the instrument too : And doubtless Knowledge , Love , Hope , Delight , &c. do apprehend , or receive Christ in some sort ▪ and have him for their object . 9. Though I will not contend with him that will say , [ Fides non quà fides , sed quà c●nditio praestita , est instrumentum morale recipiendi jus ad Christum & justi●iam ab ipso promeritam . ] Yet ( as I think he laieth a snare for himself and others , in turning the plain and proper term [ Condition ] into an improper term [ instrumentum Recipiendi , ] so ) I think it not to be endured that therefore faith or any act of man , should be called the instrument of Justification . For though you may in a strained speech say , that Receptio moralis activa being made the medium or condition Receptionis physicae passivae , may therefore ●e called instrumentum recipiendi , and Credere vel acceptare said to be moraliter vel reputativè pati ; ( and so every condition quà condition be termed a Receptive instrument ) I say , though I will not quarrell with this speech for meer unfitness ; yet it is a higher and more dangerous errour to say That faith or any condition is therefore instrumentum Justificationis . It is not an instrumental efficient cause of the effect , because it is medium fine quo non recipitur : As Realis vel naturalis receptio Justificationis , is not Justificare , sed Justificari ; so much more evident is it that Moralis & imputativa Receptio Justificationis , non est Justificare , sed medium necessarium ad [ Justificari . ] 10. Lastly , I say again what I said in my Aphorismes ; These two Questions must be distinguished : What is the nearest reason of faiths interest in Justification ? And , what is the remote reason ? or why did God assign faith to this office ? To the first , this is the only true Answer : Faith Justifies rather then any thing else , because God in framing his deed of gift , was pleased to make faith the condition : The meer constitution of the Donor is the cause . To the second , this is my Answer : God chose faith to this office of being the justifying condition , rather then other duties , because it was fittest : as being in its own nature , An acceptance of a freely given Christ , and Life with him ( which men call the instrumentality . ) I have the more fully opened my meaning here together about this point ( though with some repetitions ) that I might leave no room for doubting of it , and misunderstanding me . §. 12. Mr Bl. THe Spirit will do nothing without our faith , and our faith can do nothing without the Spirit . Man cannot justifie himself by beleeving without God , and God will not justifie an unbeleeving man. Faith then is the act of man ; man beleeves , yet the instrument of God , that justifies only beleevers . §. 12. R. B. 1. THe Spirits working in Sanctification , is nothing to our question of Justification . 2. The Spirit worketh our first faith without faiths co-working ; and that is more then nothing . 3. The Spirit moveth faith to action , before faith move it self : and that is more then nothing . 4. It is not so easily proved as said , that the Spirit never exciteth any good act in the soul , nor yet restraineth from any evil , without the co-working or instrumentality of faith . But these are beside the point . 5. When you have laid down one Proposition [ Man cannot justifie himself by beleeving , without God , ] how fairly do you lay down this as the disjunct Proposition ? [ and God will not justifie an unbeleeving man. ] Concedo totum . Is that your Conclusion ? Would you have no more ? Who would have thought but you would rather have said [ Nor will God justifie man , unless his faith be the instrument of it ? ] And do you not seem to imply that man with God doth justifie himself , when you say [ Man cannot justifie himself by beleeving without God ? ] No , nor with him neither ? For none can forgive sins but God only , even to another : but who can forgive himself ? Indeed I have thought what a sad case the Pope is in , that is the only man on earth that hath no visible pardoner of his sin : he can forgive others ; but who shall forgive him ? But I forgot that every beleever forgiveth himself ; for I did not beleeve it . 6. How nakedly is it again affirmed , without the least proof , that our faith is Gods instrument in justifying ? Doth God effect our Justification by the instrumentall , efficient causation of our faith ? Let him beleeve it that is so happy as to see it proved , and not barely affirmed . §. 13. Mr Bl. SO that which is here spoken , by way of exception , against faith as an instrument , holds of efficients and instruments , sole and absolute in their work and causality . But where there is a concurrence of Agents , and one makes use of the act of another to produce the effect that in such causality is wrought , it will not hold . §. 13. R. B. HE that will or can make him a Religion of words and syllables , that either signifie nothing , or are never like to be understood by the learner , let him make this an Article of his faith . 1. What you mean by [ absolute ] I cannot certainly ariolate , unless that which is never a principall . 2. Nor know I whether by [ sole ] you mean Materialiter , Formaliter , vel Respectivè quoad causam principalem . 1. Two materials may concurre to make one formal instrument : Here the instrument is but one , though the matter of it may be of divers parts . Sure this is not your sense , that faith and something else materially concurre to make one instrument . 2. An instrument may be called [ sole ] formally , when it it is the only instrument , and there is no other concurreth to the effect . If you mean that my exceptions hold against none but such sole instruments , then it is more nakedly , then truly asserted : nor do they hold ever the more or less , whether the instrument be sole or not : else they would hold against few instruments in the world . For it is not usual to have an effect produced by a sole instrument : especially of subordinate instruments , though it may be usual as to coordinate . 3. An instrument may be called [ sole ] Respectivè , as to the principal cause : viz. It is not the instrument of many principals , but of one only . Is this your meaning , that my exceptions would hold , if faith were only mans instrument , or only Gods ; but not when it is both ? If so 1. This is affirmed without the least shew of proof , or reason ; why my exceptions hold not as much against that instrument of a double principal , as of a single ? surely the nature of an instrument is not varied by that . 2. If God and man be both principals ( as they must be , if faith be the instrument of both ) then either coordinate or subordinate ; but neither of these , as I have argued before . Man neither forgives himself under God , or with God , if you speak of one and the same forgiveness . Though I know there is another kinde of forgiveness , whereby a man may forgive himself : whereof Seneca speaks , de Ira , when he saith , [ Why should I fear any of my Errors , when I can say , See thou do so no more , I now forgive thee . ] lib. 3. cap. 36. O for one proof among all these affirmations , that [ here is such a concurrence of Agents , that God makes use of the act of man , to produce the effect of Remission ] and that as an instrument , and not only as a meer condition , fine qua non . §. 14. Mr Bl. THe Promise or Grant of the New Covenant in the Gospel , is ( instead of faith ) made the instrument in the work of Justification . This is indeed Gods , and not mans . It is the Covenant of God , the promise of God , the Gospel of God : but of it self unable to raise man up to Justification . §. 14. R. B. YOu have been farre from satisfying me in asserting the instrumentality of faith in Justification . You here come more short of satisfying me , against the sufficiency of the Gospel-grant as Gods instrument . You say , This indeed is Gods , not mans . I say , There is none but Gods : for non datur instrumentum , quod non est causae principalis instrumentum . You say , It is of it self unable to raise man up to Justification . I answer , 1. It is not of it self able to do all other works antecedent to Justification , as to humble , to give faith , to Regenerate , &c. But that 's nothing to our business . 2. But as to the act of Justification , or conveying right to Christ , pardon , and righteousness , I say , It is able of it self as the signum voluntatis divinae to do it . And you will never be able to make good your accusation of its disability . 3. If you should mean that [ of it self ] i. e. without the concomitancy of faith as a condition , it is not able : I answer , that 's not fitly called disability : Or if you will so call it ; the reason of that disability , is not because there is a necessity of faiths instrumentall co●fficiency ; but of its presence as the performed condition : It being the will of the donor that his grant should not efficere actualiter , till the condition were performed . §. 15. Mr Bl. IT is often tendered and Justification not alwaies wrought , and so disabled from the office of an instrument , by Keckerman in his Comment on his first Canon concerning an instrument . As soon as the instrument serves not the principall agent , so soon it loseth the nature of an instrument . He instanceth in an horse which obeyeth not the reins of his rider , but grows refractory : then he ceaseth to be an instrument for travell . A sword is not an instrument of slaughter , where it slayes not : nor an ax an instrument to h●w , when it cuts not . Neither is the Gospel an instrument of Justification , where it justifies not . §. 15. R. B. J Am too shallow to reach the reason of these words . I know you had not leasure to write them in vain , and meerly to fill paper . And I will not be so uncharitable as to think you willing to intimate to the world , that I had wrote or thought that the Gospel was the instrument of justifying a man that was never justified . Do you think I know not a Cause and Effect are so related , that formaliter it is not an efficient before it doth effect ? Though it may still be the same Thing , and have the same Aptitude to produce the Effect , even when it is not applied : and therefore by many Logicians is laxly termed a Cause still . 3. Nor can I perceive you make this a medium of any argument : except you would argu● thus : The grant of the Covenant is not an Instrument of justifying unbelievers that never were justified : Therefore it is not a full or proper instrument of justifying believers that are justified . ] Or else , therefore faith is an instrument as well as the Gospel . To your Reader that is no wiser then I , these words therefore , are at the best but lost labour . For I suppose this Argumentation you will not own . §. 16. Mr Bl. WHen the Minister is a Minister of condemnation , the savour of death to death , there the Gospel becomes an instrument of condemnation and death . §. 16. R. B. 1. SO it is , if there be no Minister where it is known any way . 2. I speak of Gods grant or promise in the Gospel : you speak of his commination . 3. If the threat be the proper instrument of condemnation , à pari , the promise or gift is the proper instrument of Justification . Saw you not this when you wrote it ? §. 17. Mr Bl. THe efficacy that is in the Gospel for Justification , it receives by their faith to whom it is tendred . §. 17. R. B. DArkly , but dangerouslly spoken . Darkly , for its possible you may mean , that it receives it by faith as by a condition sine quâ homo non est subjectum proximè capax : and so I grant the sense : dangerously , For the words will seem to any impartial Reader to import more ; specially finding what you say for faiths instrumentality before : viz. That the Gospel receives its efficacy from faith , or by faith as the instrument which conveyeth that efficacy to the Gospel : which if you mean , I would for the Truth 's sake , and your own , that these words had never been seen . For if faith give the Gospel its efficacy ; 1. It cannot be as a concause-instrumentall , coordinate ; but as a superiour , more principal cause to the subordinate . 2. If it were the former that is meant , yet were it intollerable . 1. Nothing but a superiour cause doth convey efficaciam causandi to another . And this must be either , 1. Influendo in potentiam inferioris . 2. Vel in actum . To say that mans faith doth either of these to the Gospel-grant , is such a doctrine as I will not dare to argue against , left you take me thereby to accuse you of being guilty of it . 2. Faith cannot as a concause , convey any efficacy into the Gospel : For a co-ordinate concause doth influere immediatè in ipsum effectum , at non in concausae potentiam vel actum . 3. If you had only said that faith doth concurre in efficiency with the Gospel , to Justification ; you had said more then you bring any proof for : But let 's see what you bring in stead of proof . §. 18. Mr Bl. HEb . 4.2 . Vnto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them : but the Word preached , did not profit them , not being mixed with faith in them that heard it . 1 Thes . 2.12 , 13. You received not the Word of God , as the word of men , but ( as it is in truth ) the Word of God , which effectually worketh in you that believe . §. 18. R. B. BUt where 's your conclusion ? or any shew of advantage to your Cause ? 1. In the first Text , the Apostle speaks of the words profiting in the real change of the soul ; and our question is of the Relative . The Scripture meaneth , The word had not that further work on the heart , as it hath in them that mix it with faith : will you interpret it thus : [ The Word did not justifie them . ] 2. It s true , that the Word did not justifie them : but that 's consequential only of the former unprofitableness . Once prove that man is but as much efficient in justifying himself , as he is in the obedience and change of his minde or actions ; and then you do something . 3. Is here ever a word for the Gospels receiving its efficacy to Justification by faith ? no nor of its so receiving that real profit of sanctification , which is here meant , neither . It s weak arguing to say , The Word profited not , because it was not mixt with faith : therefore faith conveys to it its efficacy of sanctifying , yea of justifying . You cannot but know the sequel would be denied . In progressive sanctification , and obedience , and exercise of graces , the word and faith are concauses , and one will not effect without the other : But it followeth not that therefore faith gives efficacy to the Word in this ( much less to Justification where faith is no efficient . ) For concauses have not influence on each other , but both on the effect . The want of faith may hinder the Word from that further work one the soul , which presupposeth faith ( for faith is not wrought with faith's cooperation . ) and that 's all that the Text saith : But may not the absence of faith hinder , unless when present it doth effect ? I am sure in Justification , where it is but a condition , it may . The nature of a condition , when the gift is free and full , is not to effect the thing , but to suspend the efficacy of the instrument , till it be performed . As ( if I may use so gross a similitude ) the clicket of a Cross-bow doth hinder the ●ow from shooting , till you stir it ; but doth not adde any force to it , when you do stir it . The second Text I know not how you mean to make use of ; unless you argue thus : The Word worketh effectually only in Beleevers : therefore faith conveyeth efficacy to the Word . I think I need not tell you , that I deny the sequel ( not to speak of the antecedent : ) nor yet to tell you that this speaks not of working the relative change of Justification . §. 19. Mr Bl. SO that the Gospel , in it self considered , is wanting in that honour assigned to an instrument , to have influx to the producing of the effect of the principall cause , by a proper causality . If none dare say , that faith hath such an influx , they may much less say that the Word hath such an influx . §. 19. R. B. THe Gospel in it self considered , without the coordinate or subordinate , or superiour causality of faith , hath this honour so fully , clearly , beyond all doubt , that no man that is a preacher of this Gospel should question it : Much less should prefer the causality of faith , in saying , that [ we may much less give this honour to the Word , ] or say this of the Word , then of our own faith . Yet the Gospel without the concomitancy of faith , doth not actually justifie : else faith were no condition or causa sine qua non : But that is no dishonour to the Gospel ; nor defect of power which faith must supply . But the force of the instrument being meerly from the Donors will , he willeth that it shall then ( and not till then ) efficere , when the condition is performed . I appeal to all the Divines , Lawyers and Logicians in the world ; when the thing to be conveyed is but Debitum vel jus ad rem , and the effect is but a Transcendental relation ( as debitum is , ) Is not the Voluntas constituentis vel Donantis the only principal proper efficient ? And is not the sig●um voluntatis constituens , the properest instrument that the wit of man can imagine . Is not the Testament of a man the most strict and proper instrument of conveying right of the Legacy to the Legatary ? Is not a Covenant , Contract , Deed of gift , the most proper instrumental efficient cause of the duness of the thing given or conveyed ? It is not only a Law term , but a term of the strictest Logick , to call these a mans instrument for conveyance . Is not a praemiant or priviledging law , in the most strict and proper sense the Legislators instrument , effecting the debitum praemii vel privelegii ? It is evident that the fullest definition of an instrumental efficient cause doth agree to these : as far as the nature of the effect ( Relatio debiti vel juris ) will admit of full or proper efficiency . For these instruments are the very fundamenta proxima of these relations . Can you prove the like , ( yea and more ) of faith , and will not ? But I pray once more ●emember that it is not the effecting of a Physical change , but a relative , the conveying of Right that we are speaking of : so full an instrument is each of th●se that the very name of the effect is oft given to them . So a pardoning instrument is called A pardon : the instrument of donation is called A deed of gift . The Law is said , praemiare & punire , quia constituit debitum premii & paenae . §. 20. Mr Bl. PEmble therefore affirming the Word to be an instrument of Gods Spirit , presently addes , Now instruments are either cooperative or passive , and the Word must be one of these two : Cooperative , he saith it is not , and gives his reason : It is therefore , saith he , a passive instrument , working only per modum ob●ecti , as it contains a declaration of the Divine Will , and it proposeth to the understanding and will the things to be known , beleeved and practised . §. 20. R. B. Mr Pemble speaks of the Word effecting , or as the instrument of sanctification . We speak of it as conveying right to Christ , and as justifying . What 's that to this ? 2. When did Mr Pemble prove that the Word or other objects are passive instruments ? You know he goes against the stream of Philosophers : and then his reasons must sway more then his authority : And his reason , which you say he gives , is but this , It cannot be declared what operative force there should be in the bare declaration of Gods will , &c. ] But I will undertake to declare that an operation there is by the agency of this declaration ; though not punctually how it operates : I have read many that say that objectum operatur in genere causae finalis : and others that say it worketh in genere causae efficientis , some saying it effecteth Physically , others that it effecteth morally , others that objectum operatur naturaliter , at pr●ponens objectum est tantum causa moralis ; others that it is causa efficiens objectiva protatarcti●a respectu earum operationum qua ab illa immediate exercentur ; sed causa finalis respectu aliorum operationum quae ab illa sunt priorum interventu , as Burgers●is speaks : But I remember none that call it Instrumentum passivum : yea not only the object , but declaration and all , Instrumentum passivum . For my part I am of Scotu● minde , that Objectum operatur efficienter & per m●dum naturae in intellectum ; sed moraliter tantum in voluntatem ; irresistibly and necessitatingly on the intellect ( considering it as an intellect , and not so far as it is sub imperio voluntatis & ita ejus operationes sunt participativè voluntariae ; ) but on the will not so . And I am sure this passive instrumentality of the Word in sanctifying , doth very ill agree with the language of Scripture ; which makes the Word to be mighty , powerfull , pulling down strong holds , sharp , dividing , &c. The seed of God by which we are begotten , lively , the Word of life , saving mens souls , quickning , sanctifying , cleansing , &c. But what 's all this to Justification ? §. 21. Mr Bl. SO that if Burgersdicius his gladius and culter be active instruments , and Keckerman 's Incus instrumentum fabricationis , and his scamnum & mensa accubitus , & terra ambulationis ; yet it followeth not , as is thence inferred , that there is no passive instrument . Here is an instrument that is passive . §. 21. R. B. THese words import an intimation that I said all these were active instruments , which should not have been done , when I manifested that I took some of them for no instruments . 2. These words intimate , as if I concluded hence ( if not only hence ) that there are no passive instruments ; which should not be , when I only brought in these as Objections to be answered , and argued with Schibl●r against passive instruments thus : Every instrument is an efficient cause : All efficiency is by action . Therefore every instrument is active . If you chose rather ( as ordinarily you do ) to silence my reasons then answer them , yet you should not have intimated , as if I had given you none , or but such as I gave not . 3. I look for your proof of a passive instrument ; and not to say [ Here is an instrument that is passive ] as if you were demonstrating it to my eyes , when you bring nothing but singular Mr. Pembles singular word . And I doubt whether you beleeve him or your self throughly ; for if you did , I think you would preach but coldly . I am perswaded you look your preaching should operate actively : And indeed so it must or not at all ; for pati non est operari ; and therefore Pemble denieth it to cooperate , and to operate . Be not offended if I doubt whether you beleeve this your self , in your Studies , Preaching , Writing and Exhortations . 4. I doubt not but that which doth only realiter pati , may be called an instrument moraliter vel reputative : but then its reputative instrumentality , consisteth in a reputative activity . 5. And I doubt not but the dispositio materiae may , by a borrowed speech be called instrumentum recipiendi ; and so instrumentum passivum , i. e. Passionis , i. e. Receptionis ▪ but all this is nothing to the business . 6. If it were proved that there were a hundred passive instruments , it would never be proved that faith is one ( as an instrument signifieth an efficient cause ) of Gods work of justifying us : neither Really nor Reputatively is it such . §. 22. Mr Bl. THat which is produced by an efficient or principall agent to the producing of an effect , and receives activity and power from some other , is a passive instrument and not active . §. 22. R. B. STranger yet ! 1. It s nothing to the nature of an instrument active or passive , whether [ it be produced by the principal agent ] or not , so it do but subserve that agent . 2. If this proposition be true , there is never an active instrument in rerum natura : For Angels and men , calor , frigus , and all creatures are produced by God as the principal cause to the producing of some effects ( except there be any ultimi effectus found out which are not causes of other effects ) and they all receive activity and power from God. Those that are most for passive instruments say , calor is an active instrument . But if I use fire to warm my beer , or burn any thing , this receives its activity and power from another , and therefore must be no active instrument , with you . If there be no active instrument , when I thought there had been no passive instrument , I was f●r wide . 3. But what mean these strange words of [ Activity and power received ] if the instrument be not active ? Is not the Potentia here meant , Potentia efficiendi ? and is not all effection by action ? And is not the activity here mentioned , an activity in causing ? What ? and yet no active instrument ? 1 Be not offended with me , Dear brother , if I confess , that you and I differ in more points than one , and in our Philosophy as well as Theology . §. 23. Mr Bl. BVt the Word is produced and held forth of God for the work of Justification , and hath its power of working elsewhere . §. 23. R. B. YEt more strange ! 1. Is it not enough that you take the Word to be a passive instrument of Confirmation and Conversion ? and all the work that it doth on the souls of your hearers really ? 〈◊〉 you must feign the Word to be the passive instrument of Justification too ? Is there any thing in the whole world that can m●r● unfi●ly be called a passive instrument , then the Covenant of Justification ? Why , it is Gods only instrument of active Constitution of the dueness of the benefi● ? Though it be but actione morali , ut ●ignum ●●l●ntatis donatoris . The Debitum results from the Grant , Deed of Gift , Testament , or Instrument of Donation or Conveyance , as from its fundamentum proximum : And is the fundamentum proximum Relatio●is a passive Instrument ▪ 2. The Word hath its power of working elsewhere , that is , from God ; but not from mans faith : Farre be such a thought from my soul . 3. I suspect by your words , when you say [ the Word is produced and held sorth of God ] and by your discourse all along , that you all this while understand not what I mean by the Covenants justifying : ( yet I had hoped you had understood the thing it self . ) You seem to think that the Covenant justifies by some real operation on the ●oul , as the Papists say ; and our Divines say , It sanctifies ; or as it justifies in for● conscientiae , by giving assurance and comfort . But Sir , I opened my thoughts of this fully in Aphor. pag. 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 178 , 179. I scarce bestowed so many words of any one particular point . I speak not of the effect of Gods Word , as preached to mens hearts : but as it is Lex promulgata , & Faedus , & Testamentum , and so doth convey Right , or Constitute the dueness of the benefit ? This is the Record that God hath given us , eternall Life , and this Life is in his Son , &c. 1 Joh. 5.11 , 12. This Gospel-donation doth constitute the duness of the thing given ; to us ; and thus the Covenant justifies , as a written pardon under the Kings hand , or an act of grace or oblivion , doth pardon . Do you not oft read in Divines of Justificatio Juris , vel Legis , as distinct from Justificatio Judicis , vel per sententiam ? I referre you to what I said in the cited place . §. 24. Mr Bl. FOrgiveness of sins is preached in the Gospel , Act. 13.32 . But it is those that beleeve that are justified . Faith through the Spirit gives efficacy and power of working to it . §. 24. R. B. I Should tremble to say so : What Romanist by the doctrine of merit gives more to man in the work of Justification ! If our faith give efficacy and power to the Gospel to justifie us , then we justifie our selves when the Gospel justifies us ! then the Gospel is our instrument of Justification ! And can this be unless it be also said that we made the Gospel ? Then God and we are concauses in the Gospels act of Donation : And is it the same power and efficacy for justifying , which the Gospel receives from God , and which it receives from faith ? or are they divers ? If divers , shew us what they are ; and which part of its power and efficacy the Gospel receives from faith , and which from God ? If they are the same , then God must convey justifying efficacy and power into faith first , and by faith into the Gospel : which who imagineth ? or why should I be so vain as to stand to confute it ? O that you had condescended so far to your Readers weakness , as to have deigned to shew him , Quomodo patitur Evangelium recipiendo ? & Quid recipit ut siat potens & efficax ? & quomodo haec potentia & efficacia fuit in fide ? utrum eminenter an formaliter ? aut utrum fides id communicavit quod nunquam habuit ? & quomodo agit fides in hoc influxu causativo in Evangelium ? with many more of the like , which you make necessary to be enquired after . And why gave you no proof from Scripture or reason for a point that is so new , that I think never man printed before you , for so far as I can learn at present : That saith gives efficacy and power of sanctifying or exciting Grace , perhaps some before you have delivered : but that it gives efficacy and power of justifying , I think not any . 2. And sure you do not take the foregoing words for proof : If you do , I desire your Reader may not do so , What though only Believers are justified by the Covenant ? Doth it follow that faith gives efficacy and power to the Covenant to justifie ? Then either there are no conditions or causes sine quibus non : or else they all are efficient● , and give efficacy and power to other efficients : What if your father bequeath by his Testament 110 a piece to each of his sons ? to one on condition he will ask it of his elder brother , and thank him for it : to another , if he be married by such a time : to a third , if he will promise not to wast it in prodigality : Do any of these conditions give efficacy and power to the Testament ? No : Yet the Testament doth not efficaciter agere till they are performed . Why is that ? Because all such instruments work morally , only by expressing ut signa the Will of the Agent : and therefore they work both when and how he will ; and it is his Will that they shall not work till such a time , and but on such terms ; and so he frames the conditions himself , as obices to suspend his Testament or 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 Gos●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 divi●● 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 ●aith be more aptly and fitly ( as you speak ) called , an instrument , then it is a properer speech to ●ay , Faith , or m●n by faith , forgiveth sins ; then that The Covenant-grant or Condonation , or act of pardon doth forgive them . Se● 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 boldness to speak out its consequents , and say , Gods Word is the Believers word● : the Beleever enableth Gods Law of grace to forgive him : The Law of grace is defective in power , till the Beleever perfect it : Credere non est actu● subditi , vel Legatar●● , sed Rectoris , Judi●is , & Testatoris ▪ Ergo Homo habet authoritatem seipsum Justificandi , & sibi ipsi condo●andi , & credendo hanc exc●●et authoritatem . 8. Your strange proof is oft answered . What though the Word without faith is no instrument ? Doth it follow that therefore either faith makes it an in●trument , or is an instrument it self ? The King grants an Act of Oblivion or Pardon to a thousand Traytors , on condition that by such a day they come and seek and thankfully accept it : Doth their seeking or thankfull Acceptance , : give power and efficacy as an instrument to the Kings Pardon ? Or are the Pardon and Acceptance one compleat instrument ? Or is it more fit to call the Traytors Acceptance , the instrument of his Pardon , then the Kings Act ? Credat qui credere potis est . Twisse saith , An audebit Arminianus aliquis affirmare Remissionem pec●●torum esse effectionem fidei ? tametsi nisi credentibus contingat ista Remissio . Dices , fidem saltem praerequisitum quiddam esse ad Remissionem peccatorum consequendum . Esto ▪ atque hac ratione dicatur effectio fidei , sed ●u genere tantum causae dispusitivae . Twiss . Vin● . Grat. l. 1. part . 2. § . 25. p. mihi 273. So he oft : saith both of Faith and Works , that they justifie only ut causae dispositivae : and therefore in one kinde of causality ; and not as instruments properly so called . §. 26. Mr Bl. THerefore to winde up this whole Dispute in which I have studied to be brief , ( though I fear some will think I have been too tedious : ) seeing that those that make faith the instrument in Justification , make the Gospel an instrument likewise , and dare not go about to strip it of its honour : I hope that they that make the Gospel an instrument , will acknowledge faith to be an instrument in like manner , being in their efficacy as instruments so inseparably joyned , and so all the Controversie will be fairly ended and concluded . Amen . §. 27. R. B. 1. IF this be a Dispute , I am none of those that think it too long : I scarce finde a line in many Pages : It is in my eyes so short , that it seems as nothing . 2. Your motion for decision will take , when man is proved to be God : then mans act of Beleeving may fairly share of the same honour with Gods act of Legal forgiving : And yet then I shall demurre on the preferring it : But till then , I love Peace and Unity , but not on such a compromising , as to share the honour of the Redeemer with the redeemed , of the Creator with the creature , of the Sovereign pardoning , with the Traytor pardoned . 3. I like Amen better then Ergo : and Herberts transformation I much applau●● but not the substitution of Amen , for a necessary Ergo. This ●imium 〈◊〉 disputandi genus , that can prove all with a word ; an ipse dico , and wipe off all that is opposed with a wet finger , I never liked . I must next take in what you adde afterwards . §. 27. Mr Bl. Pag. 91. Obj. JT is said by another , If faith be a condition of the Covenant of Grace , then it can be no instrument of our Justification : If it be a condition in this Covenant , it justifies as a condition , and then it cannot justifie as an instrument , and so I pull down what I build , and run upon contradictions . Answ . I answer , I should rather judge on the contrary , that because it is a condition of the Covenant in the way as it is before expres● , that it is therefore an instrument in our Justification . God ●enders the gift of righteousness to be received by faith ▪ He Covenants for this faith ; for acceptation of it : By beleeving the● we keep Covenant and receive Christ for Justification ; we as well do what God requires , as receive what he tenders ; we do our duty , and take Gods gift ; and thereby keep Covenant , and receive life , and so faith is both a condition and an instrument . §. 27. R. B. BUt do you take officium and conditio to be all one ? I easily yield that we may do our duty in beleeving , though it were an instrument : But a condition is more then a duty : yea then a duty to be performed for the obtaining of a benefit ▪ Cujacius saith , Conditio est Lex addita negotio qua do●ec praestetur eventum suspendit , Vel est modus vel causa quae suspendit id quod agitur , donec ex post-facto confirmetur . Or as Mynfinger , Cum quid in casum incertum ( i. e. contingens ) qui potest tendere ad esse vel non esse conferiur And they are divided into Potestativas , Casuales , Mixtas ▪ Ours is of the former sort , and I define it , viz. the condition of the Covenant to be , Actio voluntaria de fu●●ro , a Deo Legislatore & Christo Testatore in neva Leg● , Federe , Testamento requisita , ut ex ejus praesta●ione constituatur jus actuale ad beneficium : vel , ut obligationem & eventum suspendat don●● praestetur . For ex stipulatione conditionali neque obligatio ●eque actio ulla est , an●equam conditio eveniat : Quia quod est in conditione , non est in obligatione . Vt My●sing ▪ in Iust●● . Schol. pag ▪ 5 ●● ) ● . You must consider that it is not de conditione contractus venditionis & emptionis , vel 〈◊〉 ▪ vel ●●●ationis , or any the like , that is propter pre●ium : but it is the condition 〈…〉 , but somewhat partaking naturae Feudi , as to s●me of the Benefits . This being premised , it is evident that faith cannot justifie both as a condition , and as an instrument of Justification . For 1. Either of them importeth the proximam & causalem rationem of faith , as to the effect : But it is utterly inconsistent with its nature to have two such different nearest causal interests . To be an instrument of justifying , is to ef●ect it per modum instrumenti : To be the condition , is to be the causa sine quâ non , which doth not effect , but suspend the effect till performed : It hath the name of a cause , ( and sometime is ex materia a moral impulsive , and sometime not ) but it hath the tru● nature of such a medium ad finem , as is no cause . As faith cannot be both efficiens effecti , & effectum ejusdem ●ficientis , nor be both the efficient and constitutive cause ( material or formal , ) no more can it produce one and the same effect of Justification per modum instrumenti efficientis , and per modum conditionis sine quâ non . 2. Else you must feign the pardoning act to run thus [ I will pardon thee on condition thou wilt pardon thy self by beleeving , as the instrument ] and not only [ on condition thou accept Christ . ] 3. It belongeth to the pardoning instrument to conferre the right to the thing , that is , to dissolve the obligation to punishment , and to constitute the condition of this Right or Pardon : For Dona●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 quat●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 adjecto● ; 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 ( 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 un●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 ●s no more but ●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 equivocally or falsly so called : and so that even the matter or subject , is really the matter or subject of such a Righteousness . 5. The form here being a relation , in it self , admits not of degrees . 4. The matter or subject ( our dispositions and actions ) though qua materia , they have the foresaid metaphysical perfection , yet considered in it self , or considered in reference to the meer precept of the Law , and so in its meer morality , it is imperfect . As Schibler saith , Omne perfectum est ens : & omne ens est perfectum transcendentali , & essentiali perfectione : Duobus tamen modis adhuc possunt entia vocari imperfecta . 1. Accidentaliter , quod scilicet desit id quod ad integritatem vel Ornamentum , vel altiorem & intentiorem statum pertinet . Et sub bac imperfectione etiam continetur imperfectio , quae est in defectu partium materiae minus principalium . Nam materia pertinet ad essentialem perfectionem , sed id completur satis secundum partes principales in toto heterogeneo , quae sufficientes sunt ad radicandam & sustentandam formam , manifesto iudicio , quod ablatis partibus minus principalibus , manet prior species . Veluti si homo & careat pedibus , & brachiis & naso & oculis , adhuc tamen est homo , &c. Atque ita per ablationem partium minus principalium nihil adhuc deest quod pertineat ad transcendentalem perfectionem , quae essentialis est ipsius hominis . Atque ita homo adhuc est perfecte homo , & perfecte ens : indeque nec hac imperfectione tollitur perfectio transcendentalis , &c. 2. Possunt vocari entia [ Imperfecta ] comparatè , quod scilicet non habeant essentiam tam perfectam & nobilem , quam alia . Ita materia est imperfecta , quia non fit , tam nobile ens ac forma , &c. Haec igitur imperfectio iterum non tollit perfectionem transcendentalem , quo minùs transcendenter , perfecta dicantur quae sic sunt imperfecta , l. 1. c. 1● . In both these respects I confess and maintain that our Righteousness is imperfect : that is 1. Our graces , holiness , obedience , good works , are gradually imperfect , yea oft numero , as well as gradu . 2. The Righteousness which we have in or from Christs perfect satisfaction and merits , is a Righteousness of a more noble and perfect kinde , then this inherent Righteousness required by the Law of grace : for the later stands in subordination to the former , as a necessary means , i. e. condition to make it ours . Omne tamen ens est perfectum , non solum in genere entis , sed etiam in genere talis entis , &c. Et sic etiam materia , etsi in comparatione ad alia entia , fit satis imperfecta , tamen in suo genere habet omnino perfectionem , neque sic deest ●i quicquam corum , quae ad ipsius esse pertinent . Schib . ubi sup . n. 7 , 8. The like doctrine hath Calovius Metaphys ▪ Divin . p. 246 , &c. de perfectione , fully : where of our imputed and inherent Righteousness , he saith , Prior denominatione extrinseca , posterior intrinseca , utraque verè , & realiter , ipsis competit . And these are two of his Porismes , Perfectio non admittit magis & minus : and Perfecto nihil petest accedere vel decedere . Multitudes might quickly be cited to the same purpose with these abovesaid , but that it is so known a case . And thus I have done what at present I thought my duty , that it might not be my fault that you are [ in ignorance all over . ] But I have said the less because I have lately more exactly opened the nature of our Righteousness , in Answer to the Animadversions of another Learned Brother . You adde [ I never took imperfect Righteousness to imply any such contradiction , any more then imperfect holiness . ] Reply : 1. Holiness is taken 1. For [ the relation of a Person or Thing dedicated to God : ] and so I confess it admits not of a magis or minus any more then Righteousness . 2. But our common use of the word [ Holiness ] when about persons , is for the qualities or actions of a spiritually-renewed man : and so I further say : 2. That this also hath its transcendental perfection , as well as Righteousness . But here 's the difference ( which if you adde to what is said before , you will more fully see my thoughts . ) Holiness thus taken is a quality , which though it have the truth of Being , yet is intended and remitted , or doth recipere magis & minus . Righteousness is a relation , which in suo formali is not intended or remitted . Nay if you will exactly open it , it will appear that the Righteousness in question is a Relation founded in a Relation ( the real conformity of our Acts to the Law or Rule , as it determineth what shall be the condition . ) Yea more , that the very subjectum proximum hujus relationis , nec intenditur nec remittitur : and this is it that I mean by perfection , besides the foresaid transcendental perfection . But ( because these things are exactioris indagationis ) understand that the reason of this my assertion lies here : The Law as it is the rule of obedience , doth require perfect obedience in degree ; and so here is an imperfection in our actions in the degree , as being short of what the Rule requireth ; and it being these actions with their habits that we call our holiness ( ab efficiente & fine ) therefore we must needs say , Our holiness is imperfect : And if our Righteousness were to be denominated from this Law , commanding perfection , we must say , not that such Righteousness were imperfect , because the holiness or obedience is imperfect ; but it is none at all , because they are imperfect : For imperfect obedience or holiness is not a subject or matter capable of the relation of [ Righteous ] according to that perfect Law which condemneth them , and admitteth only gradually-perfect obedience , as capable matter , without which the form cannot be received . And so our faith , repentance , and sincere Gospel-obedience , as compared to this perfect Law , are no perfect Righteousness , nor any Righteousness at all : And so this being the matter of our inherent Righteousness , I say , our faith and obedience are imperfect ( though not imperfect Righteousness , because none ) as thus compared . But then the Law as it is the determiner of the conditions , on which Christ and life shall be ours , hath made the matter or immediate subject , to be in puncto , as it were , so that it cannot be more or less , because it is the sincerity only of our faith and obedience , that is made the condition of Life , and not the gradual perfection . So that when we must be justified , the Question will not be , [ Hast thou believed and obeyed perfectly ? ] but [ Hast thou done it Truly . ] So that no imperfection of the matter consistent with sincerity , makes it less capable of the form , nor no perfection of degrees makes it capable of more of the form . The condition here is as truly performed , by true believing and obedience , in a lower measure , as in a higher : yea and this true performance is as full a Righteousness ( in relation to this part of the Law ) as if the matter of faith and obedience were more perfect : The strongest faith doth not make you Righteous in a higher degree , then the weakest that is true : For the strongest is but praestatio conditionis ( which is the Righteousness in question ) and so is the weakest . It is not therefore from this act of the Law ( determination of the condition ) that our graces or duties , are diversified as more or less perfect in degree , but it is in respect to the other act or part of the Law ( determination of duty , as such . ) So that in a word , Duty simply as duty , and holiness , or supernatural grace , as such , may be more or less . But holiness and duty , as the Materia requisita vel subjectum proximum Justitiae , consistit in indivisibili . Only let it be remembred , that I speak this of the promise of impunity and glory everlasting absolutely considered , and not of a comparative degree of glory : For it may be yet consistent with this , that a greater faith , love and obedience , may have a promise of greater glory . Remember also I pray you ( if you will do me justice ) 1. That I did only assert in my Aphorismes [ 1. A metaphysical perfection of Being , and 2. A perfection of sufficiency in order to its end ] in our righteousness : 2. And the same transcendental perfection of Being , I affirmed of holiness it self , only adding , that it being a Quality may be intended and remitted , but Righteousness being a Relation cannot ex parte sui . Now which of these perfections of Righteousness do you deny ? Not that of sufficiency as to the end , as you expresly affirm . It must therefore be the transcendental perfection of Essence . And if that be denied , then righteousness is no righteousness : for so omne ens perfectum est : And then you must maintain that it is but equivocally called righteousness , but indeed is not sn . But yet this I finde you not about , but rather confess the contrary , not only by affirming inherent Righteousness , but also affirming a double perfection of it , which you are pleased to call subjective and objective , and which can be no less then I here affirmed . §. 29. Mr Bl. ( 1 ) ISaiah I am sure saith , All our Righteousness are as filthy rags , Isa . 64.6 . No greater charge of imperfection can lye against the most imperfect holiness , then the Prophet laies upon our Righteousness . ( 2 ) Neither do I understand how holiness should be imperfect taken materially , and righteousness perfect , taken formally in reference to a Rule . §. 29. R.B. 1. WIll not all the imperfections of our Righteousness which in the Aphor. I asserted , serve to warrant the Prophets comparison , without our denying the perfection of Being ? That is , that it is truly Righteousness ? 2. My opinion of that Text is , that the Prophet means plainly , [ We are an unrighteous people , ] or [ we have no other Righteousness to glory of , but what is indeed no righteousness at all , no more then the filthy rags are clean ] no nor so much ; for they may possibly have some part clean . Yet that this is called Righteousness , is no wonder , when the next words are Negative , q. d. [ our Righteousness , is none ; or is unrighteousness : ] yea it is not unusual to give the name either from common estimation , or the persons profession , and especially from those actions which use to be the matter of Righteousness , though the form being wanting , they are not now actually the matter . So I think Solomon forbiddeth overmuch Righteousness . Further , it 's considerable , what Righteousness it is that the Prophet there speaks of , whether universal or particular ? and whether Legal , consisting in absolute perfection ; or Evangelical , consisting in sincerity ? and also whether he speak of himself and each individual , or only of the Jewish Nation described according to the generality or main part of them . 3. As for that next passage , where you tell us what [ you understand not ] I confess it seems strange to me : but I hope you make it no argument against the opinion which you oppose . If it were a good argument indeed , then the less a man understands , the better he might dispute . But let us see what it is that you understand not . 1. [ How holiness should be imperfect taken materially ? ] Sure you understand that : for what else did you mean in the foregoing words , [ No greater charge of imperfection can lye against the most imperfect holiness ? ] 2. It is therefore , no doubt , the other branch that you mean , how [ Righteousness is perfect taken formally in reference to a Rule . ] 1. That Righteousness in sensu Legali & sorensi is a relation consisting in a conformity , or congruency to the Rule , I suppose you understand , seeing both Schoolmen , and Protestant Divines do so commonly affirm it : e. g. Scotus and Dr Twiss oft . 2. That omne ens est essentialiter perfectum , I suppose also you understand ; and so that this Relation must be a perfect Relation , or none at all : where there is the form , there is the being ; and therefore the word [ Righteousness ] spoken formaliter of our Righteousness , must needs express that which is truly Righteousness , and not equivocally so called . 3. Yea I suppose you understand , that Relations do not admit of magis and minus ex parte sui , but only when they are founded in quality , ex parte fundamenti vel subjecti : At least if any would deny that , yet the relation in question , being of the nature of [ Parity , ] and not of similitude only , ( which are both implied in conformity ) doth not so much as ratione fundamenti admit of intension or remission . These things being all so generally acknowledged , you leave me only to admire that you should say , You understand them not . §. 30. Mr Bl. WE may ( for ought I know ) as well make holiness formall , and referre it to a Rule ; and Righteousness materiall , in an absolute consideration , without reference to any Rule at all . §. 30. R.B. 1. WHether you take holiness as signifying a Quality or Relation , there is no doubt but it hath its form , or else it could not have a Being ? Did you indeed imagine that I had denied that ? 2. But that holiness in our common use of the word , doth formally consist in the relation of our qualities or acts to the Law , especially in that relation of conformity , that we are now speaking of , I finde not yet proved . Holiness taken for the qualities and acts themselves , is no relation . Holiness taken for Dedication to God , is such a kinde of Relation as Donation is : It referres to God as the terminus : For omne sanctum est Deo sanctum . But to be [ Dedicated to God ] and to be [ conformed to the Law or Rule ] are not all one . 3. If you or any man resolve to use holiness in the same sense as righteousness , if I once know your mindes , I will not contradict you , for I finde no pleasure in contending about words . But for my self I must use them in the common sense , if I will be understood . 4. That you may use 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 ●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 i● 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 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 praeceptu●● 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 their own conditions . I think the solidity and great necessity of all these distinctions , is beyond Dispute . These things being thus , 1. What confusion is it to talk of the moral Law being the only Rule , when it is not one thing that is called the moral Law ? and who knows what you mean ? 2. How strange a thing is it to my ears , that you , even you , should so wholly own this , and so heartily profess that you take the Moral Law for the only Rule ? For suppose you take it for the preceptive part of the Law of nature only ( as I think you do : ) 1. That is but part of that very Law of nature : Doth not the Law of nature , as well as the positive Law , determine de Debito paenae , as well as de Debito officii ? and is a Rule of punishment as well as duty . 2. Or if you took it for the whole Law of nature , is that the only Rule ? 1. What say you for matter of duty , to the positive Precepts of the Gospel ? of Baptism , the Lords Supper , the Lords day , the Officers and Government of the Church , &c. Is the Law of nature the only Rule for these ? If you say , They are reducible to the second Commandment : I demand 1. What is the second Commandment for the Affirmative part , but a general precept to worship God according to his Positive Institution ? And doth this alone suffice ? Doth it not plainly imply that there are and must be positive Laws instituting a way of worship ? 2. Do you take the Precept de genere , to be equivalent to the Precepts de speciebus ? or to be a sufficient Rule without them ? If the Moral Law , or Law of Nature , be to you , the only Rule , and a perfect Rule , then you need no other . And if God had only written the ten Commandments , or only said in general , [ Thou shalt worship God according to his positive Institutions ] would it have been your duty to have Baptized , administred the Lords Supper ? &c. Doth the general Precept constitute this particular Ordinance as my duty ? If not ( as nothing more certain ) then the general Law , is not the only Rule , nor sufficient in omni parte ( though sufficient in suo genere , & ad partem propriam ) for the constitution of Worship , Ordinances , Church , Offices , &c. or acquainting us with our duty therein . Moreover , did Christ in Instituting these Ordinances and Officers , do any more then was done before , or not ? If no more , 1. It is superfluous . 2. Shew where it was done before . 3. Sure the fourth Commandment did not at once command both the seventh day of the week and the first . If more , then the former was not sufficient , nor is now the only Rule . Moreover , doth not the Scripture call Christ a Lawgiver ? and say , The Law shall go out of Zion , &c. Isa . 2.3 . And is he not the Anointed King of the Church ; and therefore hath Legislative power ? And will he not use the principal part of his Prerogative ? 2. I think the Moral Law , taken either for the Law given to Adam or written in Tables of stone , is not a sufficient Rule to us now for beleeving in Jesus Christ ; no nor the same Law of nature , as still in force under Christ . For a general command of beleeving all that God revea● 〈◊〉 , is not the only Rule of our faith ; but the particular revelation and precept are part . And a general command to submit to what way God shall prescribe for our justification and salvation , is not the only Rule , but that particular prescript is part . And a general command of receiving every offered benefit , is not the only or sufficient Rule for receiving Christ , without the Gospel-offer of him and his benefits . 3. And I suppose you grant that as mans soul hath an understanding and a will , the former being a passage to the later , in the former practical receptions being but initiate and imperfect , and in the later perfected ; so Laws have their prefaces declaring the grounds and occasions of them , oft times ; and so the Laws of God have their Narratives , Histories and Doctrines , concerning the grounds , the subject , the occasion , &c. as well as the more essential parts , viz. Precepts and Sanction . These I spoke not of before in the distinctions . Now do you indeed think that the Law of nature , or what ever you now mean by the old Rule and Moral Law , is the sufficient and only Rule of Knowledge , Judgement and Faith ? I take it for granted that you will acknowledge the assenting act of faith to be in the understanding : and that the Word of God is the rule of this assent . Had you in the old Rule or Moral Law , a sufficient and only Rule for your faith , in the Article of Christs Incarnation , Birth , Life , Innocency , Miracles , Death , Burial , Resurrection , Assension , full Dominion in his humane nature ? &c. Was this Article in the Creed before Christs coming [ Except ye beleeve that I am he , ye shall die in your sinnes ? ] Besides , matter of faith is also matter of duty : for it is our duty to beleeve all these Truths . But I think it was then no mans duty to believe that this Jesus the son of Mary was the Saviour , before he was Incarnate ; or to believe that Christ was Dead , Ascended , &c. Therefore that which you call the Old Rule , is not as you say the Only Rule of our Duty in Beleeving . 4. But what if all this had been left out , and you had proved the Moral Law , the only Rule of duty ? doth it follow that therefore it is the only Rule ? Sure it is not the only Rule of rewarding ! For if you take the Moral Law , for the meer preceptive part of the Law of nature , then it is no Rule at all of rewarding ; for it is the promise , and not the precept that doth make due the reward . And if you take the moral Law for the whole Law of nature , it is a very great Dispute whether it be Regula pramiandi at all ; much more as to that great reward which is now given in the Law of grace by Christ ( your self deny it , pag. 74. ) I dare not say that if we had perfectly obeyed , Everlasting Glory in Heaven had been naturally our due . And for Remission of sin , and the Justification of a sinner , and such like , they are such mercies , as I never heard the Law of nature , made the only Rule of our right to them . 5. The same I may say of the Rule of punishment . The privation of a purchased , offered Remission and Salvation , is one part of the penalty of the new Law , of which the Moral Law can scarce be said the only Rule . ( None of them that were bidden shall taste of the Supper . 6. But the principal thing that I intend , is that the Moral Law is not the only Rule what shall be the condition of Life or Death : and therefore not the only Rule according to which we must now be denominated , and hereafter sentenced Just or Unjust . For if the accuser say He hath not performed 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 Gibie●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 against me , yet I am uncertain , because he reciteth no words of mine . I have no more to do in this therefore but to clear my own meaning . 1. The word [ Covenant ] is sometime taken for Gods Law made to his creature , containing Precepts , Promises and Threatnings : Sometime for mans promise to God. [ Violation ] is taken either rigidly for one that in judgement is esteemed a non performer of the conditions : Or laxly , fo● one that in judgement is found a true performer of the conditions , but did neglect or refuse the performance for a time . Taking the word [ Covenant ] in the later sense , I have affirmed that man breaks many a Covenant with God , yea even the Baptismal vow it self is so broken , till men do truly repent and believe . But taking the word append [ Covenant ] in the former sense , and [ Violation ] in the stricter sense , I say that so none violate the Covenant but finall unbelievers and impenitent ; that is , no other are the proper subjects of its peremptory curse or threatning . I think not my self called to give any further answer to that Chapter of Mr. Blakes . R. B. Mr. Blake's 32. Chap. I take to be wholly against me , and though I know nothing in it that I have not sufficiently answered , either in the place of my Book of Baptism , whence he fetcheth my words , in the Appendix in the Animadversions on Doctor Ward , or before to Mr. Tombes , yet because I take it to contain doctrine of a very dangerous nature , I will more fully Answer it . §. 39. Mr Bl. Ch. 32. A Dogmatical faith entitles to Baptism . 3. IT further follows by way of Consectary , that a Dogmatical faith ( ordinarily called by the name of faith Historical , such that assents to Gospel truths , though not affecting the heart to a full choice of Christ , and therefore was short of faith which was justifying and saving ) gives title to Baptism . The Covenant is the ground on which Baptism is bottomed : otherwise Church-membership would evince no title , either in infants or in men of years to Baptism : But the Covenant ( as we have proved ) is entered with men of faith not saving : and therefore to them Baptism is to be administred . How the consequent can be denied by those that grant the antecedent ; Baptism denied in foro Dei , to men short of saving faith , when they are in Covenant , I cannot imagine : Yet some that confess their interest in the Covenant , deny their title to Baptism , and affirm , [ If men be once taught that it is a faith , that is short of justifying and saving faith , which admitteth men to Baptism , it will make foul work in the Church . §. 39 ▪ R. B. BEfore I give a direct Reply to these words , I think it necessary that I I tell you , How farre I take Unregenerate men to be in Covenant with God , and how farre not : and that I also discover as farre as I can Mr. Blake's minde in this Point ; that it may be known wherein the difference lieth . The [ Covenant ] is sometime taken for Gods part alone , sometime for our part alone , sometime for both conjunct , even for a mutual Covenanting . As it is taken for Gods act , it signifieth 1. Either some absolute promise of God , made 1. Either to Christ concerning men , or on their behalf ( and so the elect may be said to be in Covenant before they are born , because Christ hath a promise that they shall be saved , and the non-elect are in Covenant before they are born , because Christ hath a promise of some good to them . ) 2. Or to men themselves : And that is either 1. Common , or 2. Peculiar to some . 1. Common : as the promise made to fallen mankinde that a Saviour should be sent to Redeem them . The promise made to the people of Israel that the Messiah should be of them according to the ●●esh , and personally live among them , and preach the Gospel to them . The promise made to Noah and the world , that the earth should no more be drowned with water : The promise of preaching the Gospel to all Nations ( which is common , though not absolutely universal : ) the promise of a Resurrection to all the world , and that they shall be judged by Christ the Redeemer , and ( at least those that heard the Gospel ) on the terms of the new Law , and not on the meer rigorous terms of the Law of entire nature : the promise of a fuller and clearer promulgation and explication of the Law of grace , when Christ should come in the flesh : the promise of a fuller measure of the Spirit to be poured out , for Miracles to confirm the Christian Doctrine to the beholders , hearers and actors ; that there shall be a Ministry Commissioned to Disciple and Baptize all Nations , maintained to the end of the world ( which gives Ministers right and authority to Baptize them ; ) and if there be any other the like promise of the means necessarily anteceding faith . Thus farre many thousands that are unregenerate , and non-elect , may be said to be in Covenant , that is under these promises . 2. Some of these absolute promises are peculiar to some : as to one Sex ( though common as to that Sex ) as the mans superiority : to one Age : to one Degree in order of nativity ( as to the elder brother to have some superiority over the younger , Gen. 4.7 . ) to one Nation , as to the Israelites were made many peculiar promises ; and those before mentioned which I called common as to all Israel , were peculiar to them ( some of them ) in exclusion of other Nations . And some to particular persons , good or bad : as for success in battell , or other enterprises ; for aversion of some threatned judgement ; for the abating of some inflicted punishment ; for some temporal or common blessing ; of which sort we finde many particular promises which God by some Prophet made with particular men . In all these respects I say wicked men have been under a promise , yea men not elect to salvation : and thus far they may be said to be in Covenant with God. But this is but a lax and improper speech , to say ( such are in Covenant ) to be used now among Christians that have used to give the name [ Covenant ] by an excellency , to another thing . Also now wicked men are not under peculiar personal promises of temporal things , as then they were , because now there are no extraordinary Prophets , or other the like Messengers o● Revelations from God to make such particular promises to men . ( Yet I will not say God hath restrained himself from this , or cannot , or will not do it at all , or that no man hath such Revelations ; but only 1. That it is not usual . 2. Nor is God engaged to do it . ) So for the absolute promise of the first special grace ( first faith and repentance ) to be given to all the Elect ( supposing that there is such a promise : ) this is made to none but the ungodly and unregenerate , though elect ( unless you will say , it is made to Christ for them , or rather is a prediction of good eventually to be conferred on them . ) But though in all these respects wicked men are under a promise , yet it is none of all these that gives them right to Baptism . There is no question of any but the last : and for that I have proved in my Appendix against Mr. Bedford , that it is not that Covenant that Baptism sealeth , Whither I refer you to avoid Repe●i●ion : much more easie is it to prove , that it is not that bare promise that gives right to Baptism . For many are Pagans and Infidels to whom that promise belongs . So much for the Absolute promise . 2. As for Conditional promises to man , they are either 1. Peculiar : as extraordinary promises of temporal blessings conditionally made to some particular persons heretofore . Of these I say , as of the former : Wicked men may be under such promises ; but these give not right to Baptism . 2. Common : such as are not made to this or that man more then others , but to all , at least in the tenour of the grant , though it be not promulgate to all . Of this sort 1. Some suppose certain promises to go before the great Law of grace . 2. But I yet know not of any but the Law of grace it self , ( anon to be described . ) 1. Those that do suppose some such antecedaneous promise , are of two sorts : 1. The Arminians and Jesuites . 2. Such as Mr. Blake about Church-Ordinances . 1. The Jesuites and Arminians speak of two such common promises . 1. One is of the giving of supernatural means of Revelation , to men , on condition of the right use of natural Revelation . As if God had promised to all Heathen and Infidels that never heard of Christ , that they shall have the Gospel sent them , if they will use the light of nature well , or will seek out for the Gospel . 2. The other promise which they imagine is , that God will give supernatural or special grace ( viz. the first grace of faith and repentance ) to men , on condition they will use well their common grace and means . I know of no such promise as either of these in Scripture ( of which see Davenant in his Dissertation of Universal Redemption . ) When any Arminian will shew such a promise in Scripture , we shall yield . But yet I will tell you how far I yield . 1. I yield that God doth actually give temporal blessings to wicked men : But this is no Covenant or promise . Yet it gives them a right to enjoy them de praesenti while they do enjoy them ; so that it is not sound Doctrine of them that say , Wicked men have no right to the creature , in whatsoever they possess , and that they are but usurpers . For if you see one naked in the street , and put him on a garment ; he hath right to wear that and enjoy it , while you permit him : But yet because you promise him nothing for the future , he is not certain a moment of the continuance of that right or possession , for you may take it off him again when you will. So wicked men have right and possession of Gods mercies by actual collation de praesenti , but not by promise de futuro , or by such proper donation , as gives them the full propriety ( for so God useth not to part with the propriety of his creatures to any . ) 2. I yield that God doth give to Heathens , who have but natural light , some helps which have a tendency to their further advancement , and doth appoint them certain means to be used for the obtaining of a higher light , and that he giveth them sufficient encouragement to go on in the chearfull use of those means , in possibilities and probabilities of success ; so that they are unexcusable that use them not . These Mr. Cotton cals half promises ( as who knows but the Lord may do thus and thus ? Pray therefore if perhaps the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee , &c. ) But promises properly they are not . God hath thought meet to keep himself disengaged from this sort of men . 3. The very same I yield of men in the visible Church using common grace , as well as they can : that is , that God hath appointed certain means which such men are to use for the getting of special grace : that those that perish , do justly perish , for not using those means so well as they could , and so for not beleeving : that he hath given them sufficient incouragement to use such means by examples , experiences , the nature of the means , and some half promises of success : but no promise properly so called . 4. I yield that he actually gives saving grace to wicked men : or else none could have it . But this they can plead no right to before they have it . 2. The second sort of promises before the great Covenant of grace , is feigned by Mr. Blake ( and if there be any other that go that way , as some do , and that with some difference among themselves : ) and that is A promise of Church-priviledges upon condition of a faith not justifying or saving . Here some annex special grace to these Church-priviledges , and so fall into the Arminian strain . So Dr. Ward against Mr. Gataker , doth make a common ( not-justifying ) faith , the condition of Baptism , and then that Baptism a means non ponenti obicem of the certain Justification of all the Baptized , and so , at least , the infants of all common professors , baptized , should be certainly justified . But I finde not Mr. Blake any where owning this connexion of special grace , and efficacy of Baptism on such : therefore I suppose it is but some common mercies that he supposeth this promise to make over to the Baptized . But I will enquire further into his opinion anon . 2. The common or general promise-conditional , which I acknowledge , is the new Law of grace , or of faith , wherein God promiseth [ to be our God , so we will take him for our God , and will be his people ] and [ to give us Christ and Life , if we will accept him as he is offered in the Gospel ] or [ that he that repenteth and beleeveth , shall be justified and saved ] and he that doth not shall be damned : Whereto is also annexed , the promise of temporal mercies , so far as they are good for us ; as appurtenances to the main blessings of the Covenant . Now I will tell you how far wicked men are under this great promise or Covenant , 1. As it is a conditional promise on Gods part , or a Law of grace enacted conditionally giving Christ and Life to all men , so All men are under it , or the subjects of it : that is , All the whole world , as to the tenour of the Law of grace , following the meer enacting ; and all that hear the Gospel , as to the promulgation . 2. So as it hath a precept conjunct , requiring them to believe and repent for remission and salvation , so all are under it , that hear it . 3. So are they as to the annexed threatning upon their unbelief and impenitency . 4. So as the Preachers of the Gospel do by Commission from Christ , apply all this to them , and intreat them by name to repent and believe , and offer them Christ and the other benefits of the Covenant , if they will repent and believe ; so wicked men are still under the promise or Covenant , as to the Nunciative offers and exhortations , which is somewhat more then a meer Promulgation of it as a Law. All these waies , or in these respects , I yield that wicked men , or unregenerate men , may be under promise , or Gods Covenant . But this is not strictly to [ be in Covenant : ] nor is this it that the right of Baptism belongs to : For all this belongs not only to Pagans , but even to obstinate Pagans that persecute this Gospel , and draw out the blood of those that thus Preach it to them : whom I suppose , few Divines Judge meet subjects for Baptism . And thus we have spoken of Gods act in the conditional promise , before the condition be performed by man , and so before Gods promise do actually conferre right to the sinner . As for the act of Gods Covenant afterwards , I shall speak of it anon . 2. Having said thus much of Gods act of promise or Covenant , and seen how far the wicked may be said to be under that promise or Covenant , we must next consider of their own promise to God , or the act of Covenanting on their own part . Mans Covenanting with God , or his entring the Covenant of God propounded to him , is either 1. to be considered in respect of the efficient ; 2. or of the object . As to the efficient , it is either 1. The act of the whole man ▪ i.e. of minde and body : 2. Or of part only : and that 1. either of the minde alone : 2. or of the outward man alone . 2. Objectively considered , it is either 1. A true proper consent agreeable to the formall object ( or to the object in its absolute necessary respects and nature . ) 2. Or it is an imperfect consent , analogically or equivocally called [ Covenanting ] when it is not suited to the formall nature of the object . This errour is 1. About the object simply in it self considered . 2. About the object comparatively considered : as God compared with the creature . And both or either of these errours is 1. Either in the intellect : when it doth not understand the nature of the object , and Gods terms on which only he offers his blessings ; or at least doth not practically understand it , but speculatively only . 2. Or of the Will : when it doth not really consent to the object , and terms of God , though they be understood , at least , speculatively . 3. Or it is , both the errour of the understanding and the will. Having thus necessarily distinguished , I will lay down in these Conclusions , how far man is in Covenant with God as to his own act . 1. Man may oblige himself by Vows to particular duties , that are not of the substance of the Covenant , and yet be wicked . 2. Yea man may oblige himself to things indifferent , and some think to evil , as Jeptha , so far as to ensnare himself in a necessity of sinning , whether he perform it or not . 3. That which God requireth of man on his part , as a necessary condition , to his right in the benefits promised by God , and that God may be , as it were , obliged actually to man , is the sincere resolved consent of the Heart or Will. 4. Yet he requireth for several reasons , that the external profession of consent be added , where there is capacity and opportunity . 5. God doth as absolutely require to our participation of his blessings , and that his Covenant may be in force actually to give us right to them , and he , as it were , obliged to give us the things promised , that we understand the absolutely necessary part of the object of our consent , or acceptance ; and that with a practical knowledge . 6. As absolutely doth he require that we do really consent according to that practical understanding . 7. It is essential to God as the object of mans faith , to be his supream Lord and Rector as Creator , and his ultimate end and chiefest good : and so must he be apprehended and willed by all that indeed take him for their God : as also to be perfect in Being , Wisdom , Goodness and Power , and of perfect Veracity . 8. It is essential to Christ as the object of our faith , to be God-man , that in our nature hath Ransomed us , by the Sacrifice of himself on the Cross for us , and Died , and Rose again , and is now Ascended in Glory with the Father , and is Lord of us all , and will Judge according to his Word to Everlasting Joy or Punishment . 9. It is essential to the object of our faith , as such , to be considered comparatively . As that God be taken not only as our good , but our chief Good , to be preferred before every creature : that he be taken not only as our Lord , but as Sovereign Lord , to be obeyed before all other : that Christ be taken for our only Saviour , and for our Lord-Redeemer , to be also obeyed before all creatures ; particularly before and against the devil , the flesh , and the world . 10. Where these essentials are not in the apprehension of the object , there is not truly the consent , or faith , or covenanting which God hath made the condition of his Promise ; and therefore such are said ( as to the Faith , Consent and Covenant so required ) but equivocally or analogically to Consent , Covenant or Believe : when truly and properly it is to be said , that they do not Consent or Covenant . Consent hath relation to the offer : and if it be not the offered thing that is consented to but somewhat else under that name , then it is not indeed Consent : for there is no Relate without its Correlate . Covenanting ( in the present sense ) implies Gods propounded Covenant and terms . For our entring the Covenant , is not a Making of terms , but an Accepting of the terms made to our hands and tendered ( with a command to accept them . ) Now if we do not consent to the same terms propounded , it is truly no Accepting , nor no Covenanting : For God never offered to enter into Covenant on such terms , and that which was never offered , cannot be properly accepted ; nor can we Covenant with God in a mutual Covenant , on terms contrary to those which he propounded . The Civil Law saith , Ignorantis non est Consensus . A God that is inferiour to creatures in Rule , or in Goodness and Desirableness , is not God indeed . And therefore he that takes God in this sense for his God , takes but the Name of God , and not God himself , but an Idol of his brain . A Christ that is only a Justifier and not a King and Governour , is not the Christ that is offered us of God ; and therefore no man is called to accept such a Christ . To erre therefore about the very essence of the Object , as such , is to null the Act , it can be no Consent or Covenant or Acceptance truly at all , but equivocally only . 11. The same may be said of counterfeit Covenanting , when it is only ore tenus , with the mouth and not the heart . 12. Yet may an oral counterfeit Covenanting oblige the party to the duty promised ( in our case ) though it give him no right to the benefit offered , nor is God as it were obliged to perform his Covenant to such . 13. The like may be said of the foresaid equivocal erroneous Consenting , Accepting , Covenanting . If the errour be through the fault of the man himself , his act may oblige himself , though God remain disobliged , and though he have no right to the thing promised by God. Thus much I thought meet to say , for the opening of that branch of the Question , How far men unregenerate may be in Covenant , as to their own act . But the great Question is yet behind , Whether these men be in Covenant with God , as to Gods actual engagement to them : so far as that Gods premise is in force for conveying actual right to them as to the promised blessings ? and so whether it be a mutual Covenant , and both parties be actually obliged ? And thus I say that wicked men are not in Covenant with God , that is ; God is not in Covenant with them : Neither have they any right to the main blessings given by the Covenant , viz. Christ , Pardon , Justification , Adoption , Glory : Nor yet to the common blessings of this Covenant , for they are given by the same Covenant and on the same conditions as the special blessings : So that though they may have right to them at present on the ground of Gods present collation , or trusting them with them ( as a servant hath in his Masters stock ) yet have they no right by Covenant : For it is Godliness that hath the promise of this life , and of that to come , as being the condition of both ; and it is seeking first Gods Kingdom and Righteousness , that is the condition on which other things shall be added to us . The same holds of Church-priviledges and Ordinances quoad possessionens not proper to the faithfull . So that in the conclusion , I say , that though wicked men have many promises from God , especially the great conditional promise of Life , if they will repent and believe ; and though they are also obliged by their own imperfect , equivocal Covenanting with God ; yet God remaineth still unobliged to them , and they have no actual right to the benefits of his promise ; because they have not performed the condition of their first right , that is , have not Covenanted truly with God , or entred the Covenant which he propounded ; having not consented to his terms , nor accepted Christ and Life as offered in the Gospel : And therefore it is the most proper language to say , that none but sincere beleevers are in Covenant with God : For the rest have but equivocally Covenanted with God , and God not actually engaged in Covenant with them ( for while the condition is unperformed there is no actual obligation on the promises ) and so it is no proper mutual Covenant . And consequently these men in proper strict sense , are no true Christians , but analogically only . Yet because we have no access to their hearts , and therefore must judge of the heart by the profession and outward signes , therefore we must judge these probably to Covenant with the heart , who do profess to do so with the tongue ; and those to Covenant entirely and without errour in the essentials , who profess so to do : and therefore we must judge them probably to be true Christians , and truly godly men ( till they retract that profession by word or deed : ) and therefore we must judge them probably to be truly in Covenant with God , and such as God is , as it were , obliged to justifie : and therefore we must give them the name of Christians , and men in Covenant with God : and therefore we must use them as Christians in works of charity , and in Ordinances , and Church communion : and so must use their children as Christians children . The warrant for this usage and Judgement , I must desire the Reader to take notice of , in what I have written to Mr Tombes Objections on 1 Cor. 7.14 . and to Dr. Ward , and against Mr. Tombes Precursor more fully : For to repeat all here again would be tedious and unnecessary . When Christ saith to us , [ If a Brother repent , forgive him ] here by [ Repenting ] doth Christ mean plainly Repenting , or the profession of it ? No doubt , repenting it self . Why , but how can we that know not the heart , know here when our Brother repenteth ? Will Mr. Bl. say therefore that none is obliged to forgive ? Rather we know that man must judge him to repent that professeth so to do : and therefore forgive him that professeth it . Not because professing was the assigned requisite condition : but a sign of that condition : and therefore we are to accept of no profession , but what probably signifieth true repentance . For if we knew a man dissembled , or jeered us in professing repentance , we are not bound to do by him as a penitent . So God commandeth us to love and honour them that fear the Lord , that are faithfull , that love Christ , &c. But we know not who these be : Are we therefore disobliged from loving and honouring them ? Or will Mr. Bl. say that we must not honour them , lest we mistake and give that honour to one that hath no right to it ? ( as he saith about the Sacrament ; herein joyning with Mr. Tombes . ) Those that profess to fear God and love him , we must love and honour as men that do fear and love him : yet in different degrees , as the signes of their graces are more or less propable . In some common professing Christians , we see but small probability : yet dare we not exclude them from the Church , nor the number of true believers , as long as there is any probability : Others that are more judicious , zealous , diligent , and upright of life , we have far stronger probability of ; and therefore love and honour them much more . Mr. Blake therefore in my judgement had done better , if , with that moderate , Reverend , Godly man Mr. Stephen Marshall , he had distinguished between these two Questions , [ Who are Christians or Church-members ? ] and [ Whom are we to judge such and use as such ? ] and to bring in the unregenerate in the later rank only . Next we are to see what is Mr. Blakes judgement herein , that we may not argue against him before we understand : which yet I think I shall in some measure be forced to do , or say nothing , 1. I finde it very hard to understand what persons they be that he takes to be in Covenant : 2. And as hard to understand what Covenant he means . For the first , I finde it clear that negatively he means , They are not truly Regenerate persons , but Positively how they must be qualified I finde not so clear . Pag. 189. he saith it was with all that bore the name of Israel ( which is no further true then I have laid down in the former Conclusions ) so that it may seem that he takes all to be in Covenant that bear the name of Christians . What ? though they know not what Christ or Christianity is ? Is taking a name , entering into Covenant ? The poor Indians that by thousands are forced by the Spaniards to be baptized , are said to know so little what they do , that some of them forget the name 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 conse●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 , ●nd makes God to be also in Covenant with them . But what Covenant of God is t●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 Par●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 absolute obligation already . ) But it is Gods Covenant act that we are enquiring after . In what sense is that called Outward ? 1. It cannot be as if God did as the dissembling creature , ore tenus , with the mouth only covenant with them , and not with the heart , as they deal with him : 2. I know therefore no possible sense but this , that it is called [ Outward ] from the Blessings promised which are outward . Here therefore , 1. I should have thought it but reasonable for Mr. Bl. to have told us what those outward Blessings are that this Covenant promiseth . 2. That he would have proved out of Scripture that God hath such a Covenant , distinct from the Covenant of Grace , which promiseth Justification and Salvation , and having other Conditions on our part . For both these I cannot finde what outward blessings he means but Church Ordinances and Priviledges . These consist in the Word , Sacraments , Prayer , Discipline . For the Word , God oft bestoweth it on Infidels , and in England there are men that deride the truth of Scripture , and esteem it a fiction , and yet for credit of men , come ordinarily to the Congregation . These have the Word given them , and so have other unregenerate men : but not by Covenant that I know of . Even the godly have no Covenant assuring them that for the future they shall enjoy the Word , further then it is in their hearts ( except that promise with a reserve , If God see it Good , &c. ) Where hath God said , If thou wilt with thy mouth profess to believe , I will give thee my Word preached ? 2. For Baptism , It is part of our profession it self . And though God hath commissioned us to Baptize such professours and their seed , yet that is not a Covenant with them : Nor do I know where God saith , I will give thee Baptism , if thou wilt but say , thou believest , or if thou wilt profess seriously a half faith : More shall be said against this anon . 3. For the Lords Supper the same may be said . God hath no where made a Covenant , that they shall have the Lords Supper that will profess faith . To feign God to make a Covenant with man , whose condition shall be orall profession , and whose Blessing promised , is only the nudum signum , a little water to wash men , and a little bread and wine , without that Christ , and Remission of sin , Mortification and Spiritual Life , which these Sacraments are in their Institution appointed to signifie , seal and exhibit , this is , I think a groundless and presumptuous course . 4. The same may be said of Discipline : which , alas few Churches do enjoy . I desire therefore that those words of Scripture may be produced where any such outward Covenant is contained . I take outward Ordinances and other blessings to be a second part of , or certain appurtenances to the blessings of the great Covenant of Grace , and given by Covenant on the same condition ( of true faith ) as Justification it self is : but allowed or given by Providence , where and when God pleaseth , and sometime to Infidels that never made profession , as to some of them ( the Word and temporal mercies ) and not assured by promise to any ungodly man , that from Providence receiveth them . At last , after this necessary explication , I come to Mr. Bl's words which I propounded to Reply to . And first , when he saith [ A dogmatical faith entitleth to Baptism . ] I reply , 1. A meer Dogmatical , Historical faith , is only in the understanding ; and that not Practical neither . Now if this be the condition of the outward Covenant , then it may consist with a Renouncing Christ , and open disclaiming him , yea a persecuting the very Christian name : For a man may speculatively and sleightly believe the word of God to be true , and yet may openly profess [ I love the world , and my pleasure , and honour , so much better then Christ ; that I am resolved I will be no Christian , nor be baptized , nor take Christ on the terms that he is offered on . ] At least , he that professeth Assent only , and will not profess consent also , doth not profess Christianity : For Christianity and true faith lieth in the Wils consent , as well as the understandings Assent . 2. And how can Mr. Bl call this Dogmatical faith , a covenanting ? when covenanting is known to be the expression of the Wils consent , and not the profession of an opinion . 3. If a Dogmatical faith be the condition , and make a man a Christian , then he may be a Christian against his Will : which was yet never affirmed . But Mr. Bl. in his explication of this Dogmatical faith , addeth by way of exclusion [ though not affecting the heart to a full choice of Christ . ] Where he seems to imply ( though he express it not ) that the faith which he meaneth doth affect the heart to a choice of Christ which is not full . But if so , then 1. It is much more then Assent , or a meer Historical Dogmatical faith . 2. But is the choice which he intimateth Real , as to the Act , and suited to the Object ? That is , the real choice of such a Christ as is offered , and on such terms ? If so , it is Justifying faith . If not , either it is counterfeit as to the Act , or but nominal as to the Object , and is indeed no choosing of Christ . Though perhaps , it may not be suited to the Accidentals of the object , yet to the Essentials it must , or else it hath but equivocally the name as a corps hath the name of a man. He saith , [ The Covenant is the Ground of Baptism , otheewise Church-membership would evince no Title , &c. ] Repl. 1. I take Gods precept to be the Ground of Baptism , as it is officium a Duty , both as to the baptizer and the baptized : and his Promise , or his Covenant Grant , to be the Ground of mens Right to it , as it is a Benefit given directly by God : and their own true consent , faith or covenanting ( which with me are all one , for all that you say against it ) to be the condition of that Right . But then I think that in foro Ecclesiae a dissembler may claim that Right which strictly he hath not , and we must grant him what he claims when he brings a Probable ground of his claim : And in that it is Ministers duty to Baptize such , they may indirectly , and quoad Ecclesiam be said to have Right to be Baptized . I say Indirectly , yea and improperly : for it is not the result of Gods Covenant Grant to them ; but of his precept to his Ministers , and his Instructions , whom they ought to Baptize . 2. I argued from Right of admission to Church-membership , with Mr. T. and that Right I take the heart-covenant ( of Parent or parties themselves ) to be the condition of , as to the Invisible Church-state , and the Profession of that Covenant , not alone , but joyned with it , to be the condition of true Right before God to Visible-membership ; though men are but to use him as one that hath true Right , who by an hypocritical profession seems to have Right . Where he takes me to grant his Antecedent , that [ the Covenant is entred with men of saith not saving ] he doth me wrong : For in the properest sense ( i. e. as if God were actually , as it were , obliged to such , in the Covenant of Grace , I never said it : But how far such are in Covenant or under promise , I have by necessary distinction explained before : and I think it beseems not a serious Treatise of the Covenants , wherein this Question is so largely of purpose handled to have confounded those several considerations , and dispute so seriously before the Reader can tell about what . The words which Mr. Bl. questioneth , I confess are mine , against Dr. Ward , and I did not think in so gross an opinion Dr. Ward would have found any second to undertake that cause . §. 40. Mr. Bl. 1. ALL that hath been said for the latitude of the Covenant , may sitly be applyed in opposition to this Tenent , for the like latitude of Baptism . §. 40. R. B. THerefore did I say the more of the Covenant before , to shew your confusion and mistake in that . It is not every Covenant or Promise that Baptism is the Seal of . §. 41. Mr. Bl. ALL the Absurdities following the restraint of the Covenant to the Elect , to men of faith saving and justifying , follow upon this restraint of interest in Baptism . §. 41. R. B. WHat Absurdities follow such a restraint of it to sound believers , as I have asserted , I should be willing to know , though with some labor I searched for it . Bear with me therefore , while I examine what you refer me to . It is pag. 209. where you charge those Absurdities . And the first is this , 1. This restriction of the Covenant ( to shut out all the non-regenerate ) makes an utter confusion between the Covenant it self and the conditions of it : or ( if the expression do not please ) the Covenant it self and the duties required in it ; between our entrance into Covenant , and our observation of it , or walking up in faithfulness to it . All know that a bargain for a summe of money , and the payment of that summe ; the covenant with a servant for labor , and the labor according to this covenant , are different things . Faithful men that make a bargain , keep it ; enter covenant , and stand to it : But the making and keeping ; the entering and observing are not the same ; and now according to this opinion , Regeneration is our entrance into Covenant , and Regeneration is our keeping of Covenant : before Regeneration we make no Covenant , after Regeneration we break no Covenant , there is no such thing as Covenant-breaking . All this makes an utter confusion in the Covenant . Reply 1. I have seldom met with a complaint of confusion , more unseasonably , where the guilt of it in the plaintiffe is so visible as to marr all the work so much . 2. I cannot give my judgment of the intolerableness and great danger of your mistake here manifested , without unmannerliness . I will therefore say but this ; It is in a very weightie point , neer the foundation , wherein to erre , cannot be safe . In my Aphorisms I gave my reasons ( pag. 265 ) for the contrarie . It is a truth so far beyond all doubt , that our own Covenanting is a principal part of the condition of the Covenant of Grace , as that it is , in other terms , a great part of the substance of the Gospel . 1. The conditions are imposed by God , and to be performed by us ; the same act therefore is called our conditions as the performers , and Gods conditions as the Imposer and Promiser , giving his blessings onely on these imposed conditions . Most properly they are called the conditions or Gods Covenant or Promise , rather then of ours : for our own Promise is the first part of them , and our performance of that Promise but a secondary part . For 2. Gods Covenant is a free gift of Christ and Life to the world on condition of their Acceptance : this our Divines against the Papists on the Doctrine of merit , have fully proved . Onely this Acceptance must have these necessary modifications , which may constitute it sutable to the quality of the object , and state of the receiver . It must be a Loving , Thankfull Acceptance : and it being the Acceptance of a Soveraign , and Sanctifier , it contains a Resolution to obey him . Our Acceptance , or Consent , is our Covenanting , and our faith . So that our Covenanting with Christ , and our faith is the same thing : that is , our accepting an offered Saviour on his terms : Or a Consent that he be ours and we his on his terms . And who knows not that this Faith , or Covenanting , or Consent , is the condition by us to be performed , that we may have right to Christ and Life offered ? 3. Indeed there is herewith joyned a promise for future duty : but mark 1. what ; 2. and to what end ; 1. It is principally but a promise of the same consent to be continued , which we already give : and secondarily , a promise of sincere obedience . 2. It is not that these future promised acts shall be the condition of our first Justification , or right to Christ ; but onely the condition of the continuance of our Justification , it being certainly begun , and we put into a state of favor and acceptance , meerly on our first consent or covenanting , that is , believing or receiving Christ . That all this is no strange thing , ( that our own Covenant Act should be also the Primary condition of Gods Covenant ) may appear by your forementioned similitudes , and all other cases , wherein such Relations are contracted . If a King will offer his Son in marriage to a condemned woman and a beggar , on condition that she will but have him , that is consent , and so covenant and marry him : here her covenanting , consenting or marrying him , is the performance of the condition on her part , for obtaining her first Right in him and his : but for the continuance of that Right , is further requisite , Primarily the continuance of that consent ; secondarily the addition of subjection and marriage-faithfulness . Yet though consent begun , and consent continued , be both called consent , and are the same thing , it is only the beginning that is called marriage : so is it only begun faith , which is our marriage with Christ , and constitutes us Regenerate , or converted . And therefore you do not well to talk of Regeneration being the keeping of our Covenant . If by Regeneration you mean not Gods Act , but our repenting and believing , then it is our keeping Gods Covenant , by performing the condition , i. e. Our obeying him in entering his Covenant ; but it is not the keeping of our own Covenant : for our making or entering Covenant , is our principal condition , on performance whereof we are justified ; yet in so doing , we promise to continue that consent or faith : and so the continuance is our Covenant-keeping . As for your instances of the Covenant of paying money , and doing work , had I used such instances , what should I have heard from those men that already charge me with giving too much to works in ●ustification ? you should have considered , that our Covenant 1. is not principally to pay , and to labor , but to receive . 2. nor is it onely de suturo , but de praesenti : A consent to have Christ for our Lord , Redeemer , Saviour , Head and Husband in present and for the time to come , though the very relation consented to , doth indeed oblige us to the future duties of that Relation . By this time , I leave it to the Reader to judge , who it is that introduced confusion about the Covenant , and whether this be an error of the lower size ? As for that you adde , that then there is no Covenant-breaking ; I Reply , 1. Q●oad essentiam & possibilitatem there is . 2. Quoad existentiam , there is a breaking of meer Verbal and of Erring half Covenants , But if you think that sound Covenanting may be utterly broken , then you are against the certaintie of perseverance . As for the texts you cite , I say 1. The Israelites broke Gods commands , which are called his Covenants . 2. They broke their particular Covenants , about reforming Idolatrie and such particular sins . 3. They broke their Verbal and equivocal Covenant or Promise to God , whereby they seemed to Accept him on his terms , but did not ; and therefore had not his obligation again to them , but yet thereby obliged themselves . Your 2. Absurditie is , that then there are no Hypocrites . Reply ; Rather , Then all unregenerate professors are Hypocrites . They pretend meerly to real proper Covenanting , and they do Covenant but Verbally , and equivocally . Your Answers to the objection therefore , pag. 211 , 212 , have not the least strength , where you say , The Covenant which they enter is their pretence for God ; I Reply , they do therefore but pretend to take God for their God , which is the proper Covenanting . How else could you next say , that they are guiltie of hypocrisie ? Doubtless they had hypocrisie as well in entering the Covenant , as after in pretending to stand to it . Is it not you rather , that consequentially say , There is no Hypocrites ( among these at least ) in Covenanting , who make them all to Covenant truly and unfeignedly ? And where you say , that then they do but pretend to the stage , and to hypocrisie : It is a strange feigned consequence , without the least shew of proof . What! is he but a pretender to Hypocrisie , that takes on him a Christian , when he is none ? ( Suppose he never Covenanted ) or he that takes on him to consent or covenant in heart , when he doth it but in words , and wilfully dissembles ? Yea , if they think they Accept Christ , not knowing what Christ is , and so do not Accept him as he is offered them , and yet go on in a supposition that they are Christians ; these seem to have done what they did not , and to be what they are not : and therefore are Hypocrites , though not purposely dissembling . For your 3. Absurdity , I have said enough against that charge to Mr. Tombes , which shall stand , till you confute it , as the confutation of yours . And so much for your feigned Absurdities . §. 42. Mr. Bl. TO make the Visible Seal of Baptism , which is the Priviledge of the Church Visible , to be of equal latitude with the Seal of the Spirit , which is peculiar to invisible members , is a Paradox . §. 42. R. B. BUt you take it for granted that we do so ; which is too easie disputing . We give the Seal of Baptism to all that seem sound Believers , and their seed ; and we say , the Seal of the sanctifying Spirit , is onely theirs that Are such Believers . But if you speak onely of Covenant-Right to Baptism , Coram Deo , by his gift of Covenant , then I make them of the same extent : supposing that by the Seal of the Spirit , you mean somewhat common to every true believer . 3. But if it be the formalis Ratio of Sealing that you look at , I say , God sealeth to the wicked his Covenant or Promise as it is made to them , ( of which before ) : He sealed the conditional Covenant , which they seemed to Accept , ( which if they had not seemed to Accept , he would not have commanded the annexing of the Seal ) : and so God may be said to do it , in that he commandeth his Ministers to do it . But it is not such a sealing , as leaves God actually obliged to fulfill the promise , as he is to them that perform the condition . But of this more in its own place . §. 43. Mr. Bl. THe great conditon to which Baptism engageth , is not a prerequisite in baptism . This is plain ; no man is bound to make good his condition , before engagement to conditions : no servant is tyed to do his wook , before he hath received his earnest : no Souldier to fight before he is listed , or hath given in his name . But faith that is Justifying to Accept Christ , is the Condition to which Baptism engageth . §. 43. R. B. WHat is the conclusion therefore Justifying faith is not a prerequisite in Baptism : or according to the simile , therefore no man is bound to aceept Christ to Justification before he is baptized . I confess ▪ the reading of such passages in Grave , Learned , Godly Divines , and that with such confidence uttered as undoubted truth , and that in zeal to save the Church from the errors of us that are contrarie minded , doth very much convince me of humane frailtie , and that the best of men do know but in part , and in a little part too : and it makes me less angrie at those unlearned mistaken men , that have of late so troubled the Church : and to say with Seneca , Iniquus est qui commune vitium singulis objicit , &c. quanto in his Justior Venia sit , quae per totum g●nus humanum vulgata sunt ? Omnes inconsulti , & improvidi sumus ; omnes incerti , queruli , ambitiosi . Quid lenioribus verbis ulcus publicum abscondam ? Omnes mali sumus . Quicquid itaque in alio reprehenditur , id unusquisque in suo sinu invenic● . Quid illius pallorem ? illius maciem notas ? Pestilentia est . Placidiores itaque invicem sumus . Mali inter malos vivimus . But to the matter . 1. Then it seems , if a man believe sincerely and savingly , the main use of Baptism , as engaging , is past already . Must any sound believer then be Baptised ? or onely unsound believers and Infidels that will promise to believe hereafter ? But I will shew the foulness of this error anon , and therefore let it pass now . 2. But you say , This is plain ; to whom ? all men have not the truth , that are confident that they have it ; I see that you say , No man is bound to make good his Condition before engagement , &c. very dangerous : It is not our condition only nor principally , as to the efficient obligation , nor at all as to the Justification . Are we poor worms , our own Gods and Lords , that we should be disobliged till we will be pleased to oblige our selves ? Our faith is Gods Condition as the Imposer ; three several Bonds hath he laid upon us . 1. As Legislator of the Law of Grace , he hath commanded us to believe in , and accept an offered Christ . And is Gods command insufficient to oblige us , till we oblige our selves ? then more happy are Pagans then I imagined . 2. As the Donor of Christ and Life , and the Author of the Promise or Deed of gift ( and so Christ as Testator ) he hath made our sincere faith the condition ; saying , If thou believe , thou shalt be saved . Hereby we are bound to believe , as a necessary means to salvation . This is but a sanction of the first obligation . 3. The like may be said of the threatning , He that believeth not shall be damned ; which God addeth as Legislator to this Law , so that every man is bound to sound Believing , as the necessarie condition of salvation , before he doth consent himself , or oblige himself to it : even by an obligation which is ten thousand fold stronger then any that he is capable of laying on himself . 3. It is also a very high mistake , to think that our Covenanting or Consent , ( which is our actual believing ) is none of our condition , when it is the great and principal part of our condition ; yea all the condition of our begun Justification ( not taking the word Faith too narrowly ) . You will perhaps say , These are our conditions as subjects , but not as Covenanters . Reply . They are our conditions as subjects called to Covenant , as we are the persons to whom the Covenant is offered : They are constituted by God as Donor , Benefactor , and Author of the Covenant or Promise , and not meerly as Rector . It belongeth to the Donor to determine of the conditions of his own gift , on which they shall become due or not . Yet doth God make no transactions with men but as with subjects ; and therefore even when he deals with us as Benefactor and Donor in free gifts , it is still as Dominus & Rector Benefaciens : he lays not by his Dominion or Soveraigntie , nor these Relations to us . 4. For your instance of servants and souldiers , they leave out the great part of the condition of the Covenant of Grace : which is , that we consent to be servants and souldiers . The Relation must first be entered ; God must be taken for our God , and Christ for our Redeemer , Lord , and Saviour ; the Holy Ghost for our Guide and Sanctifyer : This is Faith and Covenanting . This goes before working and fighting . But this Covenanting is the great condition of Gods Covenant . As when the forementioned Prince is offered in marriage ( with his Dignities and Riches ) to a condemned beggar ; as it is a gift , and covenant propounded on his part , and actually to be entered , it is consent , or marriage-covenanting on her part that is the condition ; yea , and all the condition of her first right to him and his riches and honors . So in your instance : It is the servants consent or covenant to have such a man for his master ; and the souldiers consent and covenanting to have such a man for his General ; that is the condition on which one hath all his first right to the Priviledges of the family , and the other to the Priviledges of the Armie . Is not this consent necessarie in our present case ? If you would have spoke to the point , you should have said thus , No servant is tyed sincerely to consent or covenant to be a servant , before he have received his earnest : No souldier is tyed to consent or covenant truly to be a souldier , till he be listed ; which are both plainly false . Baptism is as the listing ; Consent ( which is saving Faith ) is the heart covenant , prerequisite to listing , and not the work to be done after , except you speak of the continuance of consent . Baptism is the solemnizing our marriage with Christ . And it is a strange marriage , wherein the woman doth only promise that she will begin hereafter to take that man for her husband , but not at present . Nay where such present consent is not Requisite , is a fe●gned or nominal , or half-consent , the condition on which a woman hath Right to the man and his estate , and a full consent hereafter the thing that she is engaged to . 5. In your minor , But faith that is Justifying to accept Christ , is the condition to which Baptism engageth ; either you mean only the continuance of that faith , and that is true , ( but not your meaning I think ) . Or you mean , the beginning of that faith ( as doubtless the foregoing words shew that you do ) ; and then why had we not one word tending to the proof , which would in this place have been very acceptable to me . I will anon make an argument of the contrarie . You seem to me in all this to mistake the very formal nature of a condition , as if it received its denomination from our promise to perform it ; when as , by the consent of all Lawyers that I have read of it , it is denominated from the determination of the Donor , Testator , or other Imposer ; and most evidently and unquestionably it is so , in unequal contracts , where one is the Benefactor , and hath the absolute power of disposing his own favors . §. 44. Mr. Bl. THat Faith upon which Simon Magus in the Primitive times was baptized , is that which admitteth to Baptism ; Simon himself believed and was Baptized , Act. 8.13 . But Simons Faith ●ell short of saving and justifying . §. 44. R. B COncedo totum ; sed desideratur Conclusio ; That may be said to admit to Baptism , which so qualifieth the person as that we are bound to Baptize him , as being one that seemeth sound in believing , as Simon did . But this is not Entituling , or , having Coram Deo & à faedere , Right to Baptism : nor doth prove that it is not saving Faith which God in his Covenant makes the condition prerequisite to such a Right to Baptism . §. 45. Mr. Bl. 6. IN Case only justifying Faith give admission to Baptism , then none is able to baptize , seeing this by none is discerned : and to leave it to our charity , affirming that we may admit upon presumption of a title when God denies , I have spoken somewhat , Chap. and I refer to Mr. Hudson in his Vindication , whom learned Mr. Baxter so highly commends , to shew the unreasonabless of it . §. 45. R.B. 1. SEing you have read what I have said to Mr. Tombes against this Objection , I shall take it as needless to say more , till you confute it : 2. I say not that onely justifying Faith gives Admission to Baptism . I say that the seeming , or Probable Profession of such a faith gives Admittance . 3. Nor is it left to our Charity , but imposed on us as a Duty to Baptize those that profess sound belief : but whether the profession be probably serious , or not , our understanding , and not our Charity must judge . And if you go not that way too , then it seems you would Baptize a man that should apparently jest or deride Christ under colour of professing : which were to Accept that as a profession which is no profession . For it is no further a profession then it seems to be serious and express what is in the heart . 4. Though God deny the justness of the hypocrites Title in foro Dei , yet he doth not deny it to be our duty to deal with them , for their profession , as 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 sa●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 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 no● any H●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 Professor of a dead , not working Faith. If the first , it is a contradiction to say , He professeth to have a lively Faith ; and He only engageth so to believe hereafter . For if he profess to have it already , then he can engage only to the Continuation , and not the Inception of it . If you mean the latter , then I shall shew you anon , that a man professing a Dead , not-working Faith , is not in Scripture called to Covenant with God in Baptism , to believe lively for the future , ( incepivè ) and to believe for the future with a working Faith. In the mean time , this should be proved , which yet I never saw . You suppose then , such a professor as this , coming to Baptism , saying , Lord I believe that Thou art God alone ▪ and Christ the only Redeemer , and the Holy-Ghost , the Guide and Sanctifier of thy people ; and that the World , Flesh , and Devil is to be renounced for thee : but at present these are so dear to me , that I will not forsake them for thee ; I will not take Thee for my God , to Rule me , or be my Happiness , nor will I take Christ to Govern me , and Save me in His way , nor will I be Guided or Sanctified by the Holy-Ghost ; but hereafter I will , & therefore I come to be Baptized . 3. That which you judge undeniable , you see I deny . It is not therefore de facto undeniable . When you and I can each of us attain to such a height of confidence , of the Verity of our several Contradictory Propositions , in a matter of such moment , and about the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ , which the Apostle reckoneth as the milk of Babes , who are unskilful in the word of Righteousness ( Heb. 5.12 , 13 , 14. and 6.1.2 . ) it encreaseth my conviction of the great necessity of toleration of some great errors , even in Preachers of the Gospel ; For either yours or mine seem such . I finde no proof of your undenyable Proposition . 1. The Seal is but an affix to the Promise : therefore that which is the condition of the Promise , is the condition of the Seal . 2. The use of the Seal is to confirm the Promise to him to whom it is Sealed : Therefore the condition of the Promise is the condition of the Seal . 3. If the Promise and Seal have two distinct conditions , then there are two distinct Covenants ( for from the conditions , most commonly are contracts specified : and therefore Wesenbechius and such like Logical Civilians , call it the form of the contract , or stipulation to be either Dura vel in diem , vel sub conditione , and those sub-conditions are specified oft from their various conditions ) . But there is not two Covenants , therefore ▪ but of this more anon . 4. Is it not against the nature and common use of Sealing ▪ that it should be in order before the Promise or Covenant ? and that men should have first right to that Seal on one condition , before they have right to the Promise ; and then have right to the Promise after on another condition ? 5. If it be so undenyable , that that Faith which is the condition of the Promise , is not the condition in foro Dei of Title to the Seal ; as you affirm : why do you then build so much against Mr. Tombes , on that argument from Act. 2. The Promise is to you and your children ; arguing a Right to the Seal , from an Interest in the Promise ? 6. Where you say , that An acknowledgement of the necessity of such faith , with engagement to it , is sufficient for a Title to the Seal . I Reply , then those that at present renounce Christ , so it be against their knowledge and conscience , and will engage to own him sincerely for the future , have right to Baptism . A convinced persecutor may acknowledge this necessity , and engage , that before he dies he will be a true Believer , and yet resolve to be no Christian till then , no not so much as in profession . 7. Your instance of service & fidelitie in war , runs upon the great mistake which I have so often told you of . The formal Reason and denomination of a condition , is from the Donors constitution or imposition , giving his benefits only on the terms by himself assigned ; and not from our Promise to perform them . And therefore our Promise it self , is the chief condition of Gods Promise , and ( to speak as your self did ) . Our Justifing faith being our Restipulation , that Restipulation is not only part of our condition , but the whole as to our first Right to Christ , Justification and Salvation ; though that Right shall not be continued , nor we actually glorified , but on condition both of continuing that faith , and of adding ( if there be opportunitie ) sincere obedience , in perseverance to the death . §. 50. Mr. Bl. 4. AS for the argument ad hominem , framed against those who make initial or common faith , sufficient to entitle to Baptism , and yet affix Remission of sins to all Baptism , even so received without any performance of further engagement ; I leave to them to defend , who maintain such Doctrine , and to speak to the Absurdities that follow upon it . §. 50. R. B. THough you avoid the dint of this argument , by forsaking Dr. Ward here , yet it may perhaps appear that your own way is clogged with more Absurdities then a few . §. 51. Mr. Bl. 5. THat of Philip to the Eunuch , seems to carry most colour ; The Eunuch must believe with all his heart , before he must be baptized ; and I have known it trouble some , that are fully convinced , that a Dogmatical faith gives title to baptism , satisfying themselves with this answer , that howsoever Philip called for such a faith which leads to salvation , yet did not express himself so far , that no faith short of this gives title to baptism . It may be answered , that a Dogmatical faith is true faith , suo genere , as well as that which Justifieth ; therefore I know not why men should give it the term of false Faith , seeing Scripture calls it Faith , and such as those Believers , and the heart in such a Faith ( as to an entire assent ) is required . If we look into the Eunuchs answer , in which Philip did rest satisfied , and proceeded upon it to baptism , it will take away all scruple : his answer is , I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God : There is no more in that then a common Faith : this is believed by men not justified : yet this Faith entitles to baptism , and upon this confession of Faith the Eunuch is baptized . §. 51. R. B. THat will not trouble you , which troubleth others . To your answer I Reply , 1. When we do , with the Scriptures , enquire after Faith in Christ crucified , we may well call that a false Faith which pretends to be this , and is not this , however true in suo genere . Faith in Jupiter , Sol , Mahomet , is true in suo genere : and so is humane Faith : yet I would call it a false Faith , if this should be pretended to be Faith in Christ . To believe in Christ as man only , or as God only , or as a Guide to Heaven only , and not as a Redeemer by ransom , or as one that is to justifie us , but not to Sanctifie or Rule us ; each of these is true in suo genere , but false if they pretend to be that which Scripture calls Faith in Christ , and which denominateth Believers . So is it to believe with the understanding speculatively and superficially , and yet to Dissent with the will. I think , if a man say , This is the Son , the heir , come let us kill him , and the inheritance shall be ours ; we will not have this man Reign over us : that these are not true Believers , nor have right to Baptism , though their belief that he is the heir , be a Dogmatical Faith , true in its kinde . 2. As Amesius Medulla li. 1. cap. 3. § . 20. Quamvis in Scripturis aliquando Assensus veritati quae est de Deo & Christo , Joh. 1.50 . habetur pro vera fide , includitur tamen semper specialis fiducia , atque adeo omnibus in locis ubi sermo est de salutari fide , vel praesupponitur fiducia in Messiam , & indicatur tantum determinatio vel applicatio ejus ad personam Jesu Christi , vel per assensum illum designatur , tanquam effectum per suam causam . And as words of Knowledge and Assent , do in Scripture oft imply affection and consent , so on the contrary , words of consent and affection do alwaies imply Knowledge and Assent . And therefore Faith is sometime denominated from the Intellectual act Believing , and sometime from the Wills act Receiving . 3. Do you not know how ordinarily even saving Faith it self is denominated from the Intellectual Act alone ? when yet you 'l confess the Will is necessarily an Agent in this ? many texts might quickly be cited to that end . Those that Amesius citeth may suffice : Joh. 11.25 , 26 , 27. He that believeth in me shall live . Believest thou this ? yea Lord , I believe that thou art that Christ the Son of God , that was to come into the world . Such was Nathaniels faith . Joh. 1.49 , 50. 1 Joh. 4.15 . Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God , God dwelleth in him , and be in God. And 1 Joh. 5.1 . Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ , is born of God. Here is more then Right to Baptism . The great doubt was then whether Christ were the true Messiah , and therefore this was the greatest and most difficult part of Faith , to Assent to this ; and therefore the whole is denominated from it , it being supposed , when they believed him to be the only sufficient and faithful Physitian , that they were willing to be healed by him in his way . 4. If you think , as you seem by your answer to do , that a man may Assent to the Truth of the Gospel with all his heart , and yet be void of Justifying Faith , you do not lightly err . Though an unregenerate man may believe as many truths as the Regenerate , yet not with all his heart ; Christ saith Math. 13. The word hath not rooting in him . Doubtless , whether or no the Practical understanding do unavoidably determine the Will , yet God doth not sanctifie the understanding truly , and leave the Will unsanctified : which must be said , if the Dogmatical Faith , that is the Intellectual Assent of a wicked man , be as strong as that of a true Believer . Dr. Downam in his Treatise of Justification , and against Mr. Pemble hath said enough of this , to which I refer you . I take that answer as equal to silence , which yet Mr. Bl. so highly values , as to say , It will take away all scruple . §. 52. HAving Replyed to your Answer , I shall be bold to trouble you with some more Arguments to this point . Mr. Blake affirmeth , that Justifying Faith is the great Condition to which Baptism engageth , and therefore not prerequisite to Baptism ; and that an acknowledgment of the Necessity of such Faith with engagement to it , is sufficient for a title to the Seal : and so it is a Dogmatical Faith which entitles to Baptism , in which Baptism we must engage to believe with a lively and working Faith hereafter : Against this Doctrine I argue . 1. From Authority ( beginning with the lowest Argument ) . The Reverend Assembly in their Advice for Church Government , Printed after the Directory , pag. 58. of the Church say thus , Particular Churches in the Primitive times were made up of Visible Saints . viz. of such as being of Age , professed faith in Christ , and obedience unto Christ , according to the Rule of Faith and Life , taught by Christ and his Apostles ; and of their children : and they cite Act. 2 . ●8 , 41 , last : compared with Act. 5.14 . 1 Cor. 1.2 . compared with 2 Cor. 9.13 . Now if the Profession of this Saint-ship in Faith and obedience according to the Rule , were necessary , then the profession of Justifying Faith was necessary : For this is justifying Faith without doubt . And if so , then it is not a Faith short of this which is the condition of Church member-ship ; for then the profession of that other imperfect Faith might suffice ; of which more anon . See also the Assemblies Confession . cap. 28. § . 1.6 . and the two Catechisms of Baptism , where 1. observe the ends of Baptism , that it Sealeth Remission , Regeneration , Adoption , &c. 2. the subject , that none are to be Baptized at age till they profess their Faith in Christ and Obedience to him . Which if they do sincerely no doubt that Faith is no less then justifying . See also what that truly Iudicious , Learned , Reverend Divine , Mr. Gataker hath Replyed to Dr. Ward , ( viz. against those words which I confuted , not knowing that it was Mr. Gataker that the Doctor dealt with ) in Mr. Gatakers Desceptatio de Baptismatis Infantilis vi & efficaci● , pag. 71. where he also cites Luther , Calvin , Bucer , Whitaker , &c. and therefore I will cite no more , ( Mr. Marshal in his late Sermon for Unity , I mentioned before . ) A hundred might easily and truly be cited to this purpose . Argu. 2. My Second Argument shall be from the Testimony and Practice of the purest Antiquity . 1 ▪ Justin Martyr in his second Apologie , relating the Churches custom in Baptizing , saith , As many as being perswaded do believe these things to be true which we teach , and do promise to live according to them , they first learn by prayer and fasting to beg pardon of God for their former sins , our selves also joyning our prayer and fasting : Then they are brought to the water and born again , in the same way as we our selves were born again : So for the other Sacrament he addeth , This food we call the Eucharist ▪ to which no man is admitted , but he that believeth the Truth of our Doctrine , being washed in the Laver of Regeneration , for Remission of sin , and that so liveth as Christ hath taught . 2. Irenaeus l. 4. c. 13. shews that Abrahams Faith by which he was justified , is the same with the Christian Faith , yea with that whereby we begin to be saved . And cap. 76. having reference to the Baptismal Covenant , wherein men deliver up themselves to Christ , he saith , Si igitur tradideris ei quod tuum est , id est , fidem in eum & subjectionem , percipies ejus artem , & eris perfectum Dei opus : si autem non credideris ei , & fugeris manus ejus , erit Causa in te , &c. Ille enim misit qui vocarent ad Nuptias ; qui autem non obedierunt ei semetipsos privarunt regiâ caenâ . 3. Athenagoras in Legat. pro Christianis p. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Nullus enim Christianus 〈◊〉 est , nisi ●anc professionem simulaverit . He therefore that only professeth , is but a counterfeit Christian ; and he that professeth any thing lower then Holyness , or an obediential Faith , doth profess somewhat short of Christianity , and not Christianity it self . 4. Tertullian Apolog. cap. 44. Speaking how the Heathens were fain to punish one another in Prisons and houses of Corrections , addes , Nemo illic Christianus , nisi plane tantum Christianus , aut si & aliud , jam non Christianus ; No Christian comes there unless meerly because he is a Christian : or if otherwise ( i. e. as a wicked liver ) then he is no Christian . And de Baptismo , he saith , ( cap. 6. ) Ita & angelus baptismi arbiter superventuro spiritui sancto vias dirigit ablutione delictorum quam fides impetrat , obsignata in Patre & Filio & spiritu sancto . Many places might be cited in him , that shew , they took the Baptized for justified Believers . 5. Cyprian Epist . 23. Nam cum Dominus dixerit in nomine Patris , Filii & Spiritus sancti gentes tingi , & in Baptismo , praeterita peccata dimitti , &c. And Epist . 2. § . 2. Sed postquam unde genitalis auxilio superioris aevi labe detersa , in expiatum pectus ac purum desuper se lumen infudit , postquam caelitus spiritu hausto in novum me hominem Nativitas Secunda reparavit , &c. But it is so well known a Case , that Antiquity runs wholly this way , that I think I may spare the labor of transcribing any more . I had at hand the full testimonies of Clemens Alexand. Origen , Epiphanius , Athanasius , Lactantius , Nazianzen , Nyssen , Basil , Cyril of Alexandria , Cyril of Jerusalem , Synesius , Hierom , Macarius , Eusebius , with divers others , which I now cast by as tedious and unnecessary , but shall produce quickly , if I once finde it of any use . Yet two or three brief ones I will add , which shew that it is the Covenanting or Professing of true Obedience , and consequently of a lively working Faith that is required , and not the profession of an unsound faith only . 6. Nazianzen Orat. 40. p. 641. vol. 1. ( Edit . Morel . ) saith , For to summe up all in a word ▪ we ought to judge , that the force and faculty of Baptism , is nothing else but a Covenant entered with God , for ( or a Promise made to God of ) a Second Life , ( or a new Life ) and a more pure course of living : And therefore that we shall all exceedingly fear , and with all diligence keep our Souls , lest we be found to have violated this Covenant . And doubtless to enter such a Covenant sincerely , is the work of a Faith not short of justifying : and therefore it is justifying Faith which in Baptism is professed , and thereto required . 7. Basil . Amph. c. 9. As we believe in the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , so are we Baptized into the name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost . And Confession as Captain leads the way to salvation : and Baptism sealing up our Promise ( or Covenant ) followeth . ( It is then a Seal of our Promise , as well as of Gods. ) 8. Chrysostom , Tom. 5. Hom●l . ad Neoph. Would we did answerably go on , and those Symbols and Covenants wherewith we are bound , did stick in our hearts ; we have confessed Christs Government ; we have renounced the Devils Tyrannie ; This Hand-writing , this Covenant , this Symbol we are taught is conscribed : See that we be not again found Debtors to this hand-writing . 9. Hierom , Dial , advers . Lucif . saith again and again that Baptisma non est ( & nullum est ) sine spiritu sancto : which saying , though I approve not , yet that and many more passages in that Dialogue fully shew his judgement in this point . 10. Salvian de Gubern . l. 4. initio , saith , Nam cum hoc sit hominis Christiani fides , fideliter Christi mandata servare , fit absque dubio ut nec fidem habeat qui infidelis est , nec Christum credat qui Christi mandata conculcat . Ac per hoc totum in id revolvitur , ut qui Christiani nominis opus non agit , Christianus non esse videatur . Nomen enim sine actu atque officio suo nihil est . Et lib. 3. p. 66. Quid est igitur Credulitas vel fides ? opinor fideliter hominem Christo credere , id est , fidelem Deo esse , hoc est , fideliter Dei mandata servare . pag. 67. Infidelis sit necesse est , qui fidei commissa non servat . Argu. 3. If it be required in Baptism ▪ that men do sincerely promise for the future to Believe savingly , and to obey Christ sincerely , then Iustifying Faith is required in Baptism . But the Antecedent is acknowledged by Mr. Bl. ( except the word sincerely . ) He yieldeth that men must in Baptism engage to do this hereafter . Now I would know of him , whether God require them to make this engagement seriously , sincerely , & firmato animo , or not ? If not , then God calls them but to Dissemble , which is not true . If yea ; then I say , This is justifying Faith it self , or at least comes from it , if it be a Promise to do this presently without delay . For he that will heartily engage himself to obey Christ as his Soveraign , and rest on him for salvation , must needs be resolved so to do . But he that is so resolved , is a true Believer : For his will is sanctified ; or else he could not be thus resolved . But if it be only for so long time hence , that a man promiseth to believe and obey sincerely , with a reserve and resolution to live wickedly till then , I hope few will believe that this is the condition of Baptism , or the true Baptismal Covenant . Argu. 4. They that are to Renounce the World , Flesh , and Devil , are to be true believers ( to justification ) ; but they that are to be baptized , are then to Renounce the World , Flesh and Devil : therefore &c. The major is evident , in that renounceing these , is a renounceing them as Rulers that would command us before God , or as worldly , fleshly pleasures or profits , might seem our chief good , to be preferred before God. Now it is none but the sincere believer that can so renounce these . All others are servants to them , and make them their end . The Minor is proved thus . 1. There can be no motus to the Terminus ad quem , but there must also be a Terminus à quo . The World , Flesh and Devil , are the Terminus à quo ; without which we cannot be said to take God for our God , or Christ for our Lord-Redeemer . 2. De facto , this Abrenunciation hath been used in the Churches Baptism , ever since the Apostles days , as 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 ●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. s●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 , ●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 , but ye are Justified in the name of the Lord Jesus , &c. And Expositors judge that the Holy-Ghost refers to the sign as well as the thing signified , to the Sacrament as well as Substance , when he makes washing so necessary , and speaks of washing us from our sins in the blood of Christ , Rev. 1.5 . Though he make them not equal in necessity . Joh. 3.5 . Except a man be born of water , &c. Heb. 10.22 . Let us draw neer with a true heart , in full assurance of faith , having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience , and our bodyes washed with pure water . If it be the end of Baptism , to wash our hearts from an evil conscience , ( i. e. à Conscientia mali . ) then it is the end of Baptism , to Seal the present Remission of sin : But &c. therefore , Tit. 3.5 . He saved us by the washing of Regeneration : It is a saving work that Baptism is appointed to do . By Regeneration I understand , our new Relative state , at least principally . He that is in Christ is a new creature ; old things are passed away ; behold all things are become new . He hath a new head , is a member of a new societie , the old guilt of sin is done away , the old enmity between God and us ; we have a new Father , new brethren , new right to farther blessings , as well as a new heart . Regeneration is too narrowly taken for a Renovation of the heart alone . So that I think Remission and Reconciliation and Adoption , are meant by Regeneration , in Tit. 3.5 . and Col. 2.11 , 12. The speaking of Baptism , and the heart-circumcision therein received or professed , saith , they put off the body of the sins of the flesh , by the circumcision of Christ , being buryed with him in Baptism , &c. So in 2 Pet. 1.9 . The Apostle saith , He that lacketh these things is blinde , and cannot see far off , and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins : that is Sacramentally , and as far as the Church could go in purifying him : which shews that the end of Baptism is ( by obsignation and solemnization ) to purge men from their old sins ▪ or as Paul speaks , The sins that are past , through the forbearance of God , &c. Rom. 5. So that Remission of sins at present , being the end of Baptism rightly received , it must needs follow that Justifying faith is prerequisite to the right receiving it , and that it is not some other Faith , nor is it enough to promise Justifying Faith for hereafter . Argu. 9. If the Apostles use to communicate the proper Titles of the Justified to all that are Baptized , ( till they see them prove apostates or hypocrites ) then they did take all the Baptized to be probably justified ( though they might know that there were hypocrites among them , yet either they knew them not , or might not denominate the body from a few that they did know ) But the Antecedent is true ; therefore . I need not cite Scriptures to prove that the baptized are called by the Apostles , Believers , Saints , Disciples , Christians : Mr. Blake hath done it already , chap. 28. Now who knows not that salvation is made the Portion of Believers , Saints , Disciples ? But what , is it another sort of them ? or doth Scripture use to divide Saints , as the Genus into two Species ? Not that I know of ; It is but as an aequivocum in sua aequivocata : The Apostles naming men according to their appearance and Profession , and calling them such as they probably might be . Why else should they call them such , had not they seemed to be such , and professed it ? The names therefore do not primarily agree to these as a true Species of Believers , Saints , Disciples , Christians ; but secondarily , as the name of a man to a Corps , or as the name of a Habit to a disposition , by translation , or Analogie . But to put the matter beyond doubt , I wish Mr. Bl. to consider , that it s not only these forementioned titles , but even the rest which he will acknowledge proper to the Regenerate , which are given by the Apostles generally to the baptized . Adoption is ascribed to them , Gal. 3.26 , 27. For yee are all the children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus : for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ , have put on Christ . 2. The same ●ext ascribeth to them Union with Christ ; yee have put on Christ . 3. And Union with his body ; ye are all one in Christ Jesus . 4. Yea the next verse addes , And if ye be Christs , ye are Abrahams seed , and heirs according to the Promise . What more proper to the truly sanctified ? So the Apostle saith to all the Churches of Colloss in general . 5. That they had put off the body of sin , being buryed with Christ in Baptism , wherein also they were risen with him , through the Faith of the operation of God ; Col. 2.11 , 12. 6. Yea in 1 Cor. 6.11 . He tells the Corinthians , they were washed , sanctified , and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus ; so that Justification it self is ascribed to them . Col. 2.13 . The Apostle tells them , God had quickned them with Christ , having forgiven ●hem all trespasses . 7. Yea the like he saith of their salvation , 1 Cor. 15.2 . Eph. 2.5 , 6 , 7 , 8. yea he tells them verse 19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and sorreiners , but fellow-Citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God ; and lest any should think that Saints and Citizens , and the houshold of God , do here signifie but common Priviledges of the visible Church , he addes , And are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets , Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-Stone , in whom all the building fitly framed together , groweth to an holy Temple in the Lord ; in whom you also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit . Where most planly the Church is manifested to be but one , and that one to have saving Priviledges , and consequently , those that have not these , to be but equivocally Christians . Many more texts might be produced , where the most particular Priviledges of the Saints are given to whole Churches in common : which 〈◊〉 that the name is by Analogy or equivocally given from the sincere , to the rest , because we are to judge and denominate on probabilities . Argu. 10. If the profession of Justifying Faith be requisite in Baptism , then the Faith so professed is requisite to the right receiving of it ( and not only to be performed hereafter . ) But such profession is requisite ; therefore . The major is as true , as that God requireth no man to lye and dissemble , and to profess that with his mouth which is not in his heart : nor doth he make lying the condition of his Covenant , ( let them call it an outward Covenant , or what they will : if it be Gods Covenant , this can be none of the condition . ) For it must first in order be a Dutie , before it be made Conditional . And no lye is a Dutie . Professing is a Dutie to them that have the thing they profess : but to others , immediately and in sensu composito , it is a hainous sin , and no duty : though it be their duty still to get Faith first , and then to profess it . The minor is proved already , in the foregoing arguments , and more shall be anon . It is no less then justifying Faith that Christs Church hath ever to this day required the Baptized to profess before the application of the water . To believe in God the Father , Son and Holy-Ghost , and profess Repentance for all sins , and to renounce the world , the flesh and Devil , &c. And when Mr. Bl. maketh profession enough to give Right to baptism , I would know whether he mean the profession of Justifying-Faith , or not . If yea , then Justifying Faith is prerequisite , or else the profession of it could not . If not , then the profession of true Christianity is not requisite ; but of some part of it . For , as I have shewed , it is not the true Christian Faith , but some part of it only , if it be short of that Faith which is justifying . And let men say no more , that profession is it that entitles to Baptism , without the thing professed , when they take even profession it self of true Christianitie to be consequential , and not prerequisite . Argu. 11. If Baptism be the solemnizing of the mystical marriage between Christ and the baptized , then true justifying Faith is of God required thereto : but the Antecedent is true ; therefore . Therefore is it said that we are baptized into Christ , and into one body . And the Church hath ever held the Antecedent to be true . The consequence is evident ; in that no man but the sound believer , can truly take Christ as a Husband and Head ; for so to do , is justifying Faith. It is Christ himself first in order , and then his benefits that are offered in the Sacraments . The main business of them is to exhibite Christ himself to be received by a marriage Covenanting . The signs are but means and instruments , as a twig and turfe and Key in giving possession ; When the minister in Christs name saith , Take , Eat , &c. it is not only bread that he bids men take , but first and principally Christ by Faith. Joahimus Vadianus ( Aphorism ▪ de Eucharist . li. 3. pag. 82. ) much commendeth a saying of Chrysostoms , viz. If thou hadst no body , then Christ would have delivered thee all these gifts nakedly ( or immediately ) : but because thy Soul is conjoyned with a body , he hath delivered them in and with these sensible things . It is one of the greatest errors that can be committed in the Sacraments , to overlook Chirst himself who is offered , and to look only either to the signs or to his other gifts . We receive him first as our Saviour , our Soveraign , Redeemer , our Head , our Husband , our Captain and Guide . He therefore that comes to these ordinances , doth pretend thus to receive Christ : and doubtless to receive him thus sincerely , is true jus●●●●ing saying Faith : and therefore it is saving Faith that is called for to the due Receiving of the Sacraments . And doubtless God means a sincere , and not a seeming , dissembled , nominal Faith , in his command . Argu. 12. If there be no such Covenan● mentioned in the Scripture , ( specially to be sealed with baptism ) wherein men engage themselves to perform hereafter their first act of true Repentance and justifying Faith , then Mr. Blakes Doctrine is unsound : but there is no such Covenant ; therefore . Men are oft in Scripture called to Repent and Believe ; but nowhere ( that I know of ) to Covenant with God that they will hereafter begin to do it sincerely ; much less is there such a Covenant sealed with Baptism . They that affirm such a thing , let them prove it , if they can . Argu. 13. If according to Mr. Blakes Doctrine no true sound Believer , or Penitent person , can regularly be baptized ; then his Doctrine is unsound . But the Antecedent is true ; therefore . The consequence is proved before . The Antecedent is proved thus : According to his Doctrine , saving Faith , accepting Christ to Justification , is the great condition to which Baptism engageth , and is not prerequisite therein . Therefore he that already performeth that condition , is past such engageing to do it initially hereafter : and so hath no use for baptism as to that engagement to the great condition : so that if such a person be baptized , it must be to other ends then the Ordinance is appointed for , and so not Regularly . The like may be said of Gods part ? for to such a Believer God should Seal Remission past or present ; whereas according to Mr. Bl. the Ordinance is instituted to seal Remission future . Argu. 14. If the Doctrine opposed be true , then the Gospel preached before baptism , was not instituted , nor is to be used as a means ( at least an ordinary means ) of saving conversion ( i. e. of produc●ng saving Faith and Repentance ) But the consequent is false ; therefore so is the Antecedent . It would be tedious and needless to the Intelligent , to heap up Scripture proof of the minor , viz. that the Gospel preached before baptism , is appointed for an ordinary means of working true conversion . We see it was ordinarily done , else Preachers could not endeavor it , or hope or pray for it . The consequence is manifest , in that Mr. Bl. makes this true justifying Faith , and consequently true Repentance , to be not prerequisite to baptism , but to be engaged for as to the future performance . And therefore regularly it must be only the word after Baptism that must truly Convert , or not at all . Argu. 15. If Mr. Blakes Doctrine be true , then regularly it must be supposed that all persons are in a state of damnation immediately on their baptism ; and if they then dyed , should perish . But the consequent is false ; therefore so is the Antecedent . For the Consequence ; if Mr. Blake mean , that it is any space of time after baptism that we engage to begin our justifying Faith in , then the consequence is undenyable : for till then , the person is unjustified . But if he mean that in baptism they must engage to believe to Justification in the same instant of time , then this is to make such Faith necessary in the instant of baptism ; and this is but an evident vanity , to suppose a man not believing to justification , who yet can and must promise to do it in the same instant , or the next . Argu. 16. If it be only true justifying Faith that gives men right coram Deo ( by vertue of his Covenant ) to the Sacrament of the Lords Sup●●r ▪ and so be prerequisite to that Sacrament , and not only to be promised for ●he future ; then the same may be said of baptism . But the Antecedent is true ; therefore . The consequence is proved , 1. In that the Sacraments are both Seals of the same Covenant . 2. It is right to Church-priviledges in general that Mr. Bl. ascribes to his Dogmatical Faith , and therefore to one Sacrament as well as the other . For the Antecedent , I think our brethren that would so fain keep the Church and Ordinances pure , would hardly admit a man to the Lords Table , that they were sure did not take Christ for his Lord , or that would say , I believe all the Creed and Word of God , but I will not have Christ Reign over me at the present , but I promise that hereafter . I will see Doctor Drake against Mr. Humfrey , whether they would admit such . Hierom argues thus , from Baptism , to the Administration of the Lords Supper : therefore I may do it as to the receiving ▪ Quamobrem oro te utaut sacrificandi ei licentiam tribuas cujus baptisma probas , aut reprobes ejus baptisma , quem non existimas sacerdotem . Neque enim fieri potest , ut qui in baptismate sanctus est , sit apud altare peccator . Hier. Dialog . adv . Luciferian . Argu. 17. That Doctrine which feigneth an un-sealed Covenant for giving right to the Seal of the Covenant of Grace , is unsound : But such is Mr. Blakes ; therefore . No Scripture can be brought to prove such an outward Covenant of Gods : And it is against the common reason and custom of men , that a second Covenant should be drawn to convey right to the Seal of the first Covenant , seeing right to Covenant and Seal go together : and if there must be another Covenant to give right to that , then by the same reason there must be another to give right to that , and another to that , and so in infinitum . To the Antecedent , it is apparent that Mr. Bl. distinguisheth ex parte Dei , between the outward and the inward Covenant . It is probable that he thus distributes them from the blessings promised , whereof some are inward , and some outward : for though he explain not himself fully , yet I know no other sense that it will bear . It is evident that his outward Covenant hath no Seal . For it is a Covenant de sigillis conferendis . If therefore it have a Seal , it is either the same which is promised , or some other . Other I never heard of : they nowhere tell us what is the Seal of their outward Covenant . The same it cannot be : for the same thing cannot be the materia foederis or the Legacy it self , or the benefit given , and the Seal too of that Covenant whereby it is given . Argu. 18. That Doctrine which makes it the regular way in Baptism for all men to promise that which they can neither sincerely promise nor perform , is unsound : but such is Mr. Blakes , therefore . The disabilitie which I here speak of , is not such as is in a Godly man , to do any good without Christ and the Spirit , as is in the second cause to act without the first : or in a partial cause , to act without its compartial : but such as is in an unregenerate man to do the work of the Regenerate ; or in any broken instrument , or disabled agent , to do its own part of the work till it be altered , and made another thing , as it were . For the consequence , it is evident in that , 1. No man should ever perform Gods command concerning covenanting . 2. And no mans word were fit to be taken concerning the performance of his own Covenant . 1. Whether God may or do command some men , or all men , that which they have not abilitie to perform , is nothing to the point . For yet he gives some of them abilitie , and causeth them to perform it , when he makes it necessarie to salvation . But in this case God should enable no man ( regularly ) to that Baptismal Covenant which he commandeth , nor should any obey his command . For he commandeth them sincerely to take him for their God , and promise to Love , Believe , and Obey him hereafter . ( For to dissemble , he commands none ) . But this no unrenewed Soul can do , or ever did to this day . They cannot resolve it ; therefore they cannot sincerely promise it ; and if justifying Faith must regularly begin after baptism ( as being the great condition to which it engages , and not prerequisite ) then it is only unregenerate men that are the regular subjects of baptism . 2. And its plain that he who cannot sincerely promise , ( and therefore doth it dissemblingly , or with a half heart ) nor is able to perform his promise , is not to be credited . God himself never enableth an unregenerate man , to believe and repent savingly , while he is such , in sensu composito : and therefore is it likely that it is ordinarily and regularly such dead men that must Covenant to Repent and Believe to justification ? Renewing Grace must intercede , which is not in their hand : how then can they promise to do the works of the truly Gracious . God may invite and command the dead to live , yea and to do the works of the living , because he gave them life , and gives them means for revival . But I know not where he calls such men to promise to do it : much less is the constant Baptismal Covenant such . Argu. 19. If the Distribution of the Church into visible and invisible , be but of the subject by divers Adjuncts , and not of a Genus into its Species , then that part , or those members which are meerly visible , are indeed no part or members of the Church so distributed , ( but are only equivocally called a Church , Christians , Church-Members , &c. ) But the Antecedent is true ; therefore . The Antecedent is not only the common Doctrine of the Reformed Divines against the Papists , but is expressly affirmed by Mr. Blake in this his Book . The consequence is undeniable , in that Adjuncts are no part of the Essence , much less the Form , or the whole Essence ; and therefore cannot denominate , ( but equivocally ) instead of the Essence . Note , that visibile is not the same with visum . Argu. 20. If the man without the wedding Garment , had coram Deo Right to be there , then would not the Lord have challenged him therein with a friend , how camest thou in hither , not having on a wedding Garment ? If you will help him that was speechless to an answer , and say for him , Lord , he was compelled to come in al thy command ; I Reply , He that compelled him by invitation , did not only bid him come , but to come , not only to come in , but to come in as a Guest should , to honor and not disgrace the Feast . At lest it should have been known as implyed . It was no unrevealed thing . Argu. 21. If Circumcision were the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith , even a Justifying Faith already in being ; then so is Baptism ; but the former is certain , Rom. 4.11 , 12. He received the sign of Circumcision , a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith , which he had yet being uncircumcised : that he might be the Father of all them that believe , though they be not circumcised , that Righteousness might be imputed to them also . The last words confirm the consequence also . Argu. 22. Many texts of Scripture shew that it was Justifying Faith that was by God required in the aged in baptism : which I will cite together , and not stand to fetch an argument from each alone . Act. 2.38 , 39. was before cited , verse 41. It was they that gladly received the word that were Baptized . Act. 8.37 . also , is before spoke to ; It must be believing with all the heart . Mar. 16.15 , 16. is very plain ; first Christ commands them to preach the Gospel : then he enacteth that on this preaching , He that believeth and is baptized , shall be saved . It is then a saving Faith. It is plain that Christ purposely putteth it before baptism , as its due place , even as that preaching to which Faith is here related is put before ; and in that he gives us here the exact compendium of his new Law. And if it be not this saving Faith that goes before baptism , then Christ doth not so much as mention it . And to imagine that in this summe of his Covenant , he doth both leave wholly unmentioned that Faith which is the prerequisite condition of Baptism , and also put in its place another Faith which is consequential , this is to suppose Christ to clogg the most essential parts , and clearest compendiums of his Law , with such insuperable obscurities that it cannot be understood . And say the like by all other Scripture , and you will make it more dark then the Papists accuse it to be . Act. 16.31 , 32 , 33. The Jaylor asks what he shall do to be saved ; Paul answers him , Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ , and thou shalt be saved and thy house ; to which end , they spake to him the word of the Lord , and to all that were in his house ; and so , He was Baptized , believing in God with all his house . The Faith that Paul here commends to him , was a saving Faith expresly : He that is said to believe upon that command and instruction , is supposed to believe with the same faith that was so required of him , Act. 10.47 , 48. The Gentiles there were not only true Believers , but had the Holy-Ghost before baptism , Act. 16.15 . The Lord opened Lydias heart ( which seems to signifie a special operation of the Spirit ) before she was baptized . Act. 18.8 . Crispus and all his house believed on the Lord , which signifieth more then an Historical Faith. So Act. 19.4 , 5. It was believing on Christ , and in his name , that was the Antecedent to their baptism . Mat. 28.19 . Go , Disciple all Nations , baptizing them ; that Discipling which is here commanded , is in order to go before baptism : but it is making men sincere Disciples that is here commanded ; therefore . It is presupposed , what ever Discipling it be , that it is not the Event , but the Endeavor that is here made their dutie . And if it be only common Discipleship , then the Apostles and other Preachers of the Gospel , are not commanded to endeavor to make men true sound Believers and Disciples , till they had first baptized them , which is untrue . Moreover the Baptismal Faith , must be a Faith in Christs blood ; for the application of the water signifieth the application of Christs blood ; and therefore their reception of the one , signifieth the other : But Faith in Christs blood , is Justifying Faith , Rom. 3.25 , 26. The Righteousness of God which is by the Faith of Jesus Christ , is unto all and upon all them that believe ; Rom. 3.22 . It is therefore but equivocally called believing in Christ , as being but some part of that belief , which attaineth not this Righteousness . How many times over and over , do Christ and his Apostles promise pardon and salvation to all that believe in Christ , without distinction of believing ? whence it seems evident , that it is but improperly and equivocally called Believing in Christ , which is not Justifying and saying . See Joh. 3.15 , 16 , 18. and 11.25 , 26. and 7.38 . and 12.46 , 44. and 5.24 . and 6.35 , 40 , 47. and 14.12 . 1 Joh. 5.1 , 5 , 10. 1 Pet. 2.6 . Rom. 9.33 . and 4.5 . and 10.11 . Act. 13.48 . Moreover , how easie is it to bring many Texts that prove that it was true saying Faith it self that Christ and his Apostles preached to men , and endeavored to bring them to before baptism ? Nay finde any one of them that ever did otherwise ; whereas according to Mr. Blakes Doctrine , they should have perswaded them to a Dogmatical Faith only before baptism ( I mean , to be before performed ) and a justifying Faith after . But I will adde no more of this . Argu. 23. The Church hath ever supposed baptized persons to be saved ; unless they afterward did violate that Covenant . Therefore they supposed them to have the condition of salvation , Faith and Repentance . Hence those high elogies of baptism in most of the Fathers , wherein they are now mis-interpreted by many , as if they ascribed it to the external ordinance , whereas they presuppose , as the blood and Covenant of Christ , so the right qualifications of the partie baptized ; upon which supposition ( which we are bound to entertain of all that make a probable profession ) they did so predicate the glorious effects of Baptism , as well they might . Argu. 24. Mr. Blakes Doctrine of Baptismal Faith , leaves us in utter obscuritie , so that no man according to it , can tell whom to Baptize . He hath not ( that I can finde ) given us any description of that Faith which entitles to baptism ; and I verily think is not able to tell us what he would have himself to be taken for it . If it were a meer Dogmatical Faith , then those should be baptized that were utterly unwilling , or at least unwilling to take God for their God , or Christ for their Lord and Saviour , and the Holy-Ghost for their Sanctifier ; and should openly profess , I will not have this man reign over me , for I cannot yet spare the pleasure of my sin . If Mr. Bl. mean that there is requisite somewhat of the will and consent , though not so much as to justifie ; why did he not tell us what acts of the Will they be that are necessary ? Is it only a consent to have God called thei● God , and themselves named his people ? I will not be so uncharitable as to think that is his meaning ; Is ●t only a consent to be baptized , and to hear the Word , and receive the Sacraments ? then might it stand with the foresaid disclaiming of the Government of God and the Redeemer , and so of obedience . I think by that time Mr. Bl. hath but adventured to give us an exact definition or description of that Faith which he makes prerequisite and sufficient to baptism ( which I hereby intreat him to do ) he will have set us up so fair a mark to shoot at , that with a very little skill it may be smitten to the dust . Argu. 25. 1 Joh. 2.19 . They went out from us , but they were not of us : for if they had been of us , they would no doubt have continued with us : but they went out , that it might be made manifest that they were not all of us . They were not therefore truly Christians , Disciples , Church-Members , but equivocally . Argu. 26. I will end as I begun , with humane testimony . 1. Our Divines against the Papists , do generally plead that hypocrites are not true members of the universal Church , but as a woodden leg is to the body . I am loth to turn over books and transcribe without need , but I shall soon do it , if it be denied . 2. Our Divines against the Arminians , do suppose the first act of believing to be the first time that God 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 to us , it is strictly taken : nor had I used the term Condition as to God , but as it was necessary to satisfie the Objector , who so called it , intimating the improprietie of it . Also I did plainly shew that the thing called Gods Condition , was not precisely the same with that called ours : Ours was Believing and Repenting ; Gods is the bestowing of these , as the Question expressed ; or the giving us new and soft hearts , that we may do it our selves , and do it readily and willingly , &c. as I expressed , pag. 46. because I was not willing to meddle ( affirmatively or negatively ) with the question of Gods immediate Physical Efficiencie of our own act ; yet I doubt not but God doth truly , powerfully and effectually ( to the removing or overcoming all resistance ) move the Soul to the act it self ; and therefore it may truly be said , that not only Gods own Action , but also our action of Believing , is the thing promised , ( called his Condition by the Querist ; and though improperly , yet in a language very common in Mr. Blakes Treatise ) . This much being premised , I Reply more particularly . 1. I will yet say that God hath such an absolute Promise , as well as a Conditional , till you give me better Reasons of your denyal , or your Questioning whether Scripture will bear it . And I shall yet say that the giving of our Faith and Repentance , is the matter of that absolute promise . For your Argument to the contrarie , hath little in it , to compell me to a change . Your Maior is , Whose acts they are , his conditions they are ; instead of proof , you say , This is evident . I Reply , 1. Negatively , it had been evident de Actione qua talis , that it is no ones Condition but his that performs it ; as the condition is said to be his that performeth ▪ and not his that imposeth it . But Affirmatively the proposition holds not universally . Nor Negatively , speaking de Actione qua est quid donandum . To your Minor , I could better answer if I could have found it . I expected it should have been this , But our Faith and Repentance are not Gods acts . But I know not whether I may be so bold as say , you will own that . Before you say , This rises not to make them formally ▪ Gods acts , and not ours : where 1. you cautelously speak the two Propositions copulatively ; and 2. you put in the word formally , which may do much to help you out . For the former , it is enough according to your own Rule to prove them Gods Conditions and ours , if they be Gods Actions and ours : for you say , Whose actions they are , his Conditions they are ; that is evident . It is not therefore necessary that I prove them Gods and not ours . 2. It is hard to know whether your formally respect a natural or moral form . If the former action is the form it self , it is harder to finde out its matter . Accidents have not properly matter and form ; but the subject is called its matter ; but Action hath scarce so proper a subject as other Accidents have , seeing it is rather Agentis , then in agente inhaesivè : Of transients , it s beyond doubt ; and I think so of Immanents , unles we may with Scotus , take them for Qualities ; If you speak of Moral formality , were it sinful Action , I should deny God to be the Author ; but of Faith and Repentance I dare not do so ; I think God is the Author of them formally as well as materially . But in your following words you say , But they are our acts , &c. God believes not , &c. Reply ; 1. To believe is our act ; but to give us Faith , or to move us effectually to Believe , as a superior Cause , this is not our work , but Gods. 2. Let it be so ; to believe is our work , and our condition ; It follows not , that it is not Gods. 3. There are sufficient reasons why God is not said to Believe , though he cause us to believe . If you go on the Predeterminants grounds , I suppose you know their reasons , who take notice of the Armenians making this objection . If you enquire of the Jesuits and Arminians , that go the way of determined concourse , or of partial Causality , they think they have yet more to say , of which I suppose you not ignorant . Durandus his followers , think they have most of all to say , both why God should be said to believe , and why he is not the Author of our sin , in that they suppose that he causeth not the act immediately . And yet all these acknowledge God to be the cause of our acts . But you adventure a step further , and say , Faith and Repentance are mans works , not Gods Works . Reply ; 1. What mean you then to yield afterward that God worketh all our works in us . ( those which he worketh are sure his works ) And that , It is God that worketh in us the Will and the Deed. 2. I never met with any orthodox Divine , but would yield that ▪ Faith is a work of Gods Spirit . And the Spirits work is doubtless Gods work . 3. If you go the common way of the Predeterminants , you must acknowldge that God is the Physical , Efficient , Predetermining , Principal , Immediate cause of every act of every creature : and therefore doubtless of our Faith ; and that both Immediatione Virtutis & Suppositi , so that it is more properly his act then ours . For my part , I confess my self of Bishop Davenants minde who saith , ( against Hoard p. 116 ) As for the predetermination of mens Wills , it is a Controversie between the Dominicans and Jesuites , with whose Metaphysical speculations our Protestant Divines love not to torture their brains ; Or at le●t they should not . I take it to be a point beyond the knowledge of any man , which way Gods works on the Will in these respects . Though if I must encline to any one way , it would be rather to Durandus ( for stronger reasons then I finde in Ludov. à Dola who yet hath more then I have seen well answered ) , and lest of all to the Predeterminants , for all the numerous arguments of the Dominicans , and the seeming strength that Dr. Twisse , Heereb●ord , Rutherford , and others of our own , do adde to their cause . But yet I am far from denying our Faith and Repentance to be Gods Works ; for I doubt not but he causeth them ut causa Vniversalis , by his general Providence , as they are natural Actions ; and also by his special effectual Grace , contra omnem Resistentiam , infallibly causeth them as they are the special gifts of the Spirit . So that I marvail that you should say they are not Gods Works . In the conclusion you adde , Our dexteritie in holy duties is from the frame into which Grace puts us : so still the work is ours , though power for action is vouchsafed of God. Reply ; Both Velle & Perficere is the gift of God , and not only Posse Velle & perficere . Why should I trouble the Reader to say any more to that point , when Dr. Twisse and others against the Remonstrants have said so much ; and Austin so much before them all ? And yet I never read a Remonstrant that would say that the work is so ours , as that it is only the power that is vouchsafed us by God. I conclude therefore that you have not confuted my answer ; 1. In that you have not disproved the absolute Promise of the first special Grace . 2. You have not disproved God to be the Author of our Faith , so as that it is his work . 3. If you had , yet Believing which is our work , is not the same thing with giving Faith , or moving us to believe , which I say is Gods Work. §. 56. Of the Life Promised , and Death threatned to Adam in the first Law. Mr. Bl. I Finde no material difference in the Conditions on Gods part in these Covenants ; Life is promised in both in Case of Covenant-keeping : and Death is threatned in both in case of Covenant-breaking . Some indeed have endeavored to finde a great difference in the Life Promised in the Covenant of Works , and the Life that is promised in the Covenant of Grace ; as also in the Death that is threatned in the one and in the other ; and thereupon move many , and indeed inextricable difficulties , What Life man should have enjoyed in case Adam had not fallen ? and what Death man should have dyed , in case Christ had not been promised ? From which two , endlessly more by way of Consectary maybe drawn , by those that want neither wit nor leisure to debate them . In which the best way of satisfaction , and avoidance of such puzzeling mazes , is to enquire what Scripture means by Life , which is the good in the Covenant promised , and what by Death , which is the evil threattned . Now for the first , Life contains all whatsoever conduces to true Happiness , to make man blessed in Soul and body . All good that Christ purchases and Heaven enjoyes , is comprised under it in Gospel expressions , &c. On the contrary , under death is comprised all that is injurious to man or mankinde , that tends to his misery in Soul and body ; The damnation of Hell , being called death ( the uttermost of evils being the separation of Soul and body from God , Joh. 8.51 . 1 Joh. 3.14 . ) Sin which leads to it , and is the cause of it , is called death in like manner , Eph. 2.1 . And the separation of Soul from the body being called Death , sickness , plagues , are so called in like manner , Exod. 10.17 . Now happiness being promised to man in Covenant , only indefinitely , under that notion of Life , without limit to this or that way of happiness , in this or that place ; God is still at liberty , so that he make man happy , where or however to continue happiness to him , and is not tyed up in his engagement either for earth or heaven . And therefore , though learned Camero in his Tract . de triplici faedere . Thes . 9. make this difference between the Covenant of works and the Covenant of Grace ; In the Covenant of Works ( which he calls nature ) Life was promised , and a most blessed Life , but an animal life in Paradise ; in the Covenant of Grace , a life in Heaven and Spiritual . And Mr. Baxter in his Aphor. of Justification , p. 5. saith , That this Life promised was only the continuance of that state that Adam was then in , in Paradise , is the opinion of most Divines ; Yet with submission to better Judgements , I see not grounds for it : seeing Scripture no way determines the way and kinde , &c. And indeed there are strong probabilities , Heaven being set out by the name of Paradise , in Christs speech to the theif on the Cross , and in Pauls vision , &c. §. 56. R. B. 1. YOur opinion in this point is moderate , and ( I think ) sound . I have nothing therefore to say to you , but about our different expressions , and therefore excuse me if I be short ; for I love not that work . I think your judgement and mine are the same . 2. Only , remember , that it is Mr. Blake also that hath these words , pag. 74. The Conditions on mans part in the Covenant of Works , were for mans preservation in statu . quo ; in that condition in which he was created ; to hold him in Communion with God , which was his happiness ; he expected not to be bettered by his obedience , either respective to happiness ( no more is promised then in present he had ) nor yet in his Qualifications respective to his conformitie to God in Righteousness and true holiness . What improvement he might have made of the Habit infused , by the exercise of obedience , I shall not determine ; but no change in Qualifications was looked after or given in Promise ; so far Mr. Blake . If the Reader cannot reconcile Mr. Blake and me , let him reconcile Mr. Blake with himself , and the work is done . 3. But I confess that upon more serious consideration of several passages in the New Testament , naming and describing the work of Redemption , I am ready to think it far more probable that Adam was not created in Patria , but in Via ; not in the highest perfection which he should expect , but in the way to it . But whether God would have given it him in the same place that he was in , or in some other ( called Heaven ) upon a remove , I take as Mr. Bl. doth , to be unrevealed , and undetermined in the Promise . So that I could finde in my heart to fall a confuting the same opinion in Mr. Blake , expressed in these last words , which he confuteth in me ; but that his former save me the labor . 4. I confess also that I spoke rashly in saying that it was the opinion of most Divines ; seeing it so hard a matter to know which way most go in the point . I also confess that the judgement of Camero , Mr. Ball , Mr. Gataker , &c. swayed much with me ; but the silence of the text in Gen. much more : but I had not so well weighed several Texts in the New Testament , as I ought , which describing Redemption , give some more light into the point . The same I say concerning the qualitie of the Death threatned . 5. I agree to Mr. Blakes first conclusion , that the thing is indeterminate ; or at lest , hard for us to know ; but I cannot reconcile his premises with that conclusion ; much less with this his latter speech p. 74. For if ( as he saies ) the Life promised was all whatsoever conduces to true happiness , to make men blessed in soul and body ; ( by conducing to , I suppose he meant constituting of ) then either the Caelestial Degree of Grace and Glory conduces not to that happiness ( and then not to ours , who have no greater natural capacitie ) ; or else I see not how it can be said that this greater blessedness was not Promised . Doubtless Adam had not in present possession so great a measure of holiness , so confirmed a state of Holiness or Glory , nor so great and full a fruition of God , as Christ hath given us a sure hope of : in the Gospel . And therefore , though he say , God is at liberty for the place and way , yet that is nothing to the kinde and measure . 6. Observe that the words of mine , which Mr. Bl. opposeth , are but that Divines are of that judgement . §. 57. Mr. Bl. ANd what I have said of the Life promised , I say of Death threatned , &c. My Learned friend Mr. Baxter , enquiring into this Death , that was here threatened , saith , that the same Damnation that followed the breach of the second Covenant , it could not be . Aph. p. 15. When I suppose , it rather should be said , that in substance and kinde it can be no other . Infidels that were never under any other Covenant , &c. §. 57. R. B. 1. WHat also I have answered to the former , may suffice to this for the main . 2. One would think that you intended directly to contradict me : but whether you do so indeed , I cannot well tell . I know nor what you mean by substance and kinde , Pain and Loss have no substance , but a subject : I never doubted but that it is the Loss of the same God , and Blessedness ( formally considered ) but I am yet very uncertain whether the Blessedness promised by Christ , be not far greater in Degree , then that to Adam , and consequently whether the Poena Damni threatned in the Gospel be not far greater . Also I know as to the mediate Blessings , Relative , they are not the same : To be deprived by Unbelief , of Remission , Reconciliation , Adoption , the everlasting praising of him , that Redeemed us by his blood , &c. these are true punishments on unbelievers , that reject the mercies offered to them : but these were none of Adams punishments . That was a Negation only to him , that is a Privation to them . I profess also that I ever took the pain of Sense to be of the same nature , which was due to Adams Soul , and which is due to unbelievers . Only I then did and still do doubt , whether any Scripture speak of the everlasting Torments of Adams body ; or whether it were not only his Soul that should eternally suffer , his body being turned to dust and so suffering the penaltie of loss : Nay , whether the New Testament do not make Resurrection the proper fruit of Christs death and Resurrection ? But of this I am not fully resolved my self , much less will I contend for it . But I must needs say , that I took not a gradual difference in punishments to be inconsiderable . Nay I know that moral specifications are grounded in natural gradual differences . And Rewards and Punishments being moral things formally , they may and oft must be said to differ specie , and not to be the same , when naturally they differ but in degree . Yea , whether in naturals themselves , we may not sometimes finde a specification in meer degrees , is not so clear as rashly to be denyed . There is but a gradual difference between the smallest prick with a pin , and to be thrust throow with daggers in 20 places ; yet I will not say that it is the same punishment . §. 58. Mr. Bl. NEither can I assent to that speech , To say that Adam should have gon quick to Hell , if Christ had not been promised , or sin pardoned , is to contradict the Scriptures that make death temporal the wages of Sin. It were I confess to presume above Scripture , but I cannot see it a contradiction of Scripture . A burning Feaver , Consumption , Leprosie , Pestilence , &c. are in Scripture made the wages of sin . Yet many go to hell through those diseases , &c. §. 58. R. B. I Willingly leave every man to his own judgement in this : But I think it most probable , that the s●paration of Soul and body was particularly intended in the threatning , Thou shalt dye the death . Reas . 1. Because this is it that is in prima significatione called Death , and the miseries of Life , but Tropically , much more this or that particular miserie : which answers your objection about sicknesses . 2. This is it that Christ was necessarily to suffer for us : and if it had not been necessary for man to dye thus , by the Commination of that Law , then it would not thence have been necessary for Christ to dye this Death . For it was not the following sentence ( which you call Leges post la●as ) which Christ came to satisfie or bear , but the curse of the Law. Gal. 3.13 . be being made a curse for us . Phil. 2.8 . Col. 1.22 . Heb. 9.15 . by means of death he was to Redeem the transgressors of th● first Law ; without Blood there is no Remission : The death of the creatures in sacrificings signified the necessity of this Death of Christ . I have met with none but Mr. John Goodwin that saith , Christs readyness or willingness to have dyed , might have served the turn , though the Jews had not put him to death . Col. 1.20.14 . Eph. 1.7 . Rom. 3.25 . It s true , the Apostle speaking of the necessitie of Blood , in Heb. hath reference to the Constitutions of Moses Law : but then it must be confessed that that Law did in its Curse much explicate the former , and direct us to see what was threatned , and what must by the Messiah be suffered for us . Heb. 2.14 . Christ was to destroy by death , him that had the power of death , that is the Devil : but it seems , that the Law gave him his power , at the Will and Sentence of the Iudge , for execution . 1 Cor. 15.26.54 . Death is the last enemy to be overcome . O Death , where is thy sling ? O Grave , where is thy victory ? This is no doubt , the death now in question ; It is the evils befallen mankinde in execution of the violated Law , that are called enemies . Though we dye , it seems , there was a necessitie of Christs dying to loose the bonds of our Death , and procure us a Resurrection . Rom. 5.17 . As by one mans offence death reigned by one , &c. That one man must dye for the people , C●iaphus prophesied , Joh. 18.14 . 3. The sentence useth to contain what is threatned in the Law , and though part may be remitted , yet the other part is the same threatned . But Gods Sentence on Adam , contained the penaltie of a temporal Death . Though he mentioned not the Eternal , because he would provide a remedy , yet the temporal , as one part meant in the threatning he laid on man himself : Dust thou art , and to dust shalt thou return ; This is not as you imagine , Lex post lata ; but sententia Judicis Legis viola●ae comminationem exequentis . When it is said , 1 Cor. 15.22 . in Adam all dye ; it is , in Adams finning all became guilty of it , and in Adam then sentenced , all were adjudged to it . Which is intimated also Rom. 5.12 . Sin entered into the world , and death by sin , and so death passed on all men ▪ for that all have sinned . So that the sentence expressing this Death particularly , and Christ bearing it necessarily , and ( adde moreover ) all mankinde , for the generality , bearing it certainly , and also Death signifying primarily the separation of Soul and Body , it seems to me most probable , that this Death was in special meant in the threatning . But you say , He takes the same way where his Justice hath satisfaction ; those that are priviledged from death as the wages of sin , thus Dye . Reply . I do not believe you that any are Priviledged from death as the wages of sin , who dye . This is the part of the penalty which the sentence passed on the offendor himself , for all the promised satisfaction by a Redeemer : Nor did the Redeemer satisfie to that end , to prevent our death , or to cause that it should not be the wages of sin but to deliver us from under the power of it . Where you say , that this way of God with unbelievers is voluntary , not necessitated : I Reply ; So it may be nevertheless , because it was meant in the threatning . It is dangerous to imagine that God is ever the less free , or more necessitated , so as that his actions should be less voluntary , because of his determinations . He doth as voluntarily do what he hath predetermined to do , and foretold he will do , as if he had done neither . God changeth not , and therefore he is as voluntary in the execution , as he was in the determination . §. 59. Of the Law as made to Christ . Mr. Bl. CHap. 6. p. 25. And though Mr. Baxter doubts whether it be any part of Gods Legislative Will , as it referrs to Christ , but only as it belongs to us as a Prophesie what God would do in the advancing of Christ and his Kingdom , and so of us ; Append , p. 39. Yet me thinks it is plain , seeing Christ acknowledges a command from his Father , in laying down his life , Joh. 10.18 . and the Apostle speaking of the work , saith , He was obedient in it , &c. §. 59. R. B. ONe that had not read what I write , would think by your Answer , that I had made a doubt whether there be any Law made to Christ at all or not ? Whereas I spake only of that called the Covenant between the Father and the Son made from Eternity : or the promises expressed by the Prophets as to Christ in his meer Divine nature , not yet incarnate : For I conceive that Christ before the incarnation , may not be said to be a subject ; and that God is not properly said to command himself , or covenant with himself , or make promises by Prophets to himself . But I deny not but that Christ as man was under a Law , yea and a Law peculiar to himself , whereto no other creature is subject ; even the Law of Mediation , which deserves in the body of Theologie a peculiar place , and the handling of it , as distinct from all the Laws made with us men , is of special use , and if well done , would do much to remove the stumbling blocks which the Antinomians fall upon . §. 60. Whether the Sacraments seal the conditional Promise absolutely ? or the conclusion conditionally , when only one of the Premises is of Divine Revelation ? And whether this conclusion be de fide , I am Justified and shall be saved . Mr. Bl. p. 38. BVt that which I may not pass , is somewhat of concernment both to my self and the present cause in hand , &c. §. 60. R. B. I Need not transcribe these words , being of another , and not spoke to me . But I will pass my conjecture to his questions . 1. I conjecture that the Querist by Evading , meant Owning and Justifying the fact , and so evading the blame . 2. To the second I conjecture the Querist had been lately conversant in Mr. Blakes book , and so it was in his memorie : and whether he knew what those whom you mention do hold I cannot tell . 3. To the third ; If by Sacramental sealing , you mean Conditional sealing , I conjecture his conceit might be this , that as the Promise may be conditionally tendred to Infidels , Murderers , or any other ▪ so might the Seal , if it were but Conditional as the Promise . As we may say to the worst ; If thou wil● believe , thou shalt be saved ; so might we conditionally seal salvation to him . But I take this to be a great mistake . §. 61. Mr. Bl. p. 40. MR Baxter ( who is put to it , to stoop too low in the answer of such trifles ) in his answer to this now in hand , hath taken much pains to finde out the way of the Sacraments sealing ; and in the result , he and I shall not be found much to differ ; yet seeing providence made me the occasion of starting the question , I shall take leave to take some view of what is said . Mr. Baxter saith , It is in vain to enquire , whether the Sacraments do seal Absolutely or Conditionally , till you first know what is that they do seal ; and in order to the finding this out , he layes down the way that a Christian doth gather the assurance of his Justification and Salvation ; which is thus , He that believeth is Justified , and shall be saved : but I believe , therefore I am Justified and shall be saved ; I confess if I had been put upon a discovery of that which is sealed in the Sacraments , this Syllogism ( I think ) would scarce have come into my thoughts , seeing the Seal is Gods ( as Mr. Baxter observes ) I should have rather looked for one from him , then to have supposed a believer to have been upon the frame of one . §. 61. R. B. THis dispute is so confused , and so much about words that I would not have meddled with it , ( let men have made what use of yours they pleased ) but only for some matters of greater moment that fall in upon the by , in your handling it . I think your meaning and mine is the same . 1. I not only said , ( as you express ) that the Seal is Gods , but gave my Reasons to prove a mutual Sealing as well as a mutual Covenanting . 2. What reason have you why I might not illustrate the matter by this Syllogism , as well as another . 3. If you will have a Syllogism of Gods making , why did you not tell us when or where you found it ? and let us see as well as you , whence you had it , that we may know God made it . God doth not nectere Syllogismos for himself , nor actu immanente : if he do it , it is only for us per actum transeuntem : and then it may be found in his word . But more of that anon . 4. I should think ( though for illustration I judged it not unuseful ) that it is of no necessitie for you or me to talk of any Syllogism at all , in the enquiry after the sealed proposition . If it be but one proposition , we may express it alone : If more , we may distinctly express them ; rather then that shall breed any difference , I care not whether my Syllogism be mentioned any more : Let us see what yours is . §. 62. Mr. Bl. ANd such a one I should have looked to have gathered up from the Institution , and thus ( I conceive ) framed ; He to whom I give Christ , to him I give Justification and Salvation : But here I give thee Christ ; therefore to thee I give Justification and Salvation . §. 63. R. B. 1. WHat mean you by gathering it ? Do you mean that you will read it there ready formed ? If so , shew us the Chapter and Verse ? But that must not be expected ; for you say anon , that it is something not written that is sealed . Or do you mean that in the Institution , God gives you the materials , and you form it your selves ? If so , why blamed you mine , which is of mans forming , but yet as you suppose , the materials so far of God , that the conclusion is de fide . To give you the materials of a Syllogism , is not to give you a Syllogism ; for the form denominates . I must therefore suppose a Believer yet to be upon the frame of one ( as you speak ) . For I take you to be a Believer ▪ and I finde you here at it very seriously . 2. I confess , ( though I have no minde to quarrel with your Syllogism ) that I am never the better for the substitution of this in the room of the humane one . I know not the meaning of the first word , ( but I will not stand on that , as being I know but a verbal slip ) I do not apprehend what use there can be for this Syllogism in this business . 1. It is supposed that every Christian knows that Christ and Remission are given together ; and when they know it , what use for syllogizing towards the explication of the use of that Seal ? 2. Nay doth not your arguing intimate that the believer is more assured that Christ is given to him , then that pardon is given him ? Or else if the former were not quid notius , how could it be a fit medium ? you suppose his doubt to be of pardon and salvation , and the former brought to prove that , whereas I think , few doubt of one , but they doubt of the other : and I think the Sacrament sealeth the gift of Christ , as well as of pardon , as you confess . I see not but you might have laid down as conveniently in this one proposition , all that you say is sealed , I give thee Christ and Justification and Salvation . But this is of small moment . §. 64. Mr. Bl. THe major here is not sealed ; for the Sacraments seal to the truth of no general Propositions , but they seal with application to particular persons to whom the Elements are dispensed , as Protestant Writers have defended against Papists , and put into the difinition of a Sacrament , it seals then that which supplies the place of the minor in this tender , which is Gods gift of Christ . In the Sacrament Christ saith , This is my body ; he saith this is my blood ; and this is said to all that communicate . Now whether this gift of the body and blood of Christ be Absolutely or Conditionally sealed , will be easily resolved . The outward Elements are given on this condition that we receive them , that we eate and drink them . We have not Christ Sacramentally , till we have taken and eaten and drunk the Elements . We have not Christ in the Sacrament before our Souls h●ld f●●th that which answers to this eating and drinking . That which all do not partake of that receive the Sacrament , is not Absolutely but Conditionally sealed in the Sacrament . None can miss of that which God absolutely grants and absolutely sealeth . But all do not partake of Christ in the Sacrament ; therefore he is not Absolutely but Conditionally sealed in the Sacrament . §. 64. R. B. 1. COnfusion maketh Controversies endless , and gives advantage to mistakes to prevail with the weak Reader . I shall first tell you what I mean by sealing , before we further dispute what is sealed , and how . Some sober men , no way inclined to Anabaptism , do think that we ought not to call the Sacraments Seals , as being a thing not to be proved from the word ; ( for all Rom. 4. ) But I am not of their minde . Yet I think it is a Metaphore ; and to make it the subject of tedious disputations , and lay too great stress upon a Metaphorical notion , is the way not to edifie , but to lose our selves . I am not so well skilled in Law as to be very confident , or to pretend to any great exactness in ●hese matters ; but I conceive that in general , a Seal is an Appropriative sign , when it is set upon things , as Goods , Cattels , &c. it signifies them to be ours : when they are applyed to Instruments in writing , they have 1. the common end of a Seal . 2. a special end . 1. The common end is to signifie by a special sign our owning of that writing or Instrument to which it is annexed . 2. The special end is according to the nature and use of the Instruments viz. 1. Some Instruments directed to a Communitie , or indefinitly to any whom it may concern . 2. Some to particular persons , or some few Individuals . Both of them are , 1. either Narratives de re . 2. Or obligatory Constitutions or acknowledgments de Debito . The former are either 1. Doctrinal , and so a man may give it under his hand and seal that he owns such or such a Doctrine , or confession of Faith , or form prescribed by him as Teacher to his Schollers or Hearers , &c. 2. Or Historical ; and so a man may give it under his hand and Seal , that such a person is thus or thus qualified ; or did this or that act , or suffered losses , pain , &c. 2. The Constitutions de Debito , are 1. De Debito officii , the Constitution of Dutie . 1. By equals upon voluntary obligation by contract ( which concerneth not our business ) . 2. By Superiors to their Subjects or Inferiors , which is either a Law to any or to some Communitie : Or else a Precept to some particulars . And so Soveraigns may give out Laws , and Proclamations under their hand and Seal ? and Justices and Inferior Magistrates may seal their Precepts and Warrants , and Orders , &c. 2. Or they are de Debito Beneficii ; Constituted 1. by a Legislator or Rector as such , 2. by a Proprietary or Owner or Lord , as such . 1. The former is either Absolute , as the Collation of some honors may be , and some acts of pardon , and the Divisions of Inheritances , as among the Israelites at their first possessing Canaan : Or they are Conditional ; And the Condition is either pure Acceptance ( which is so naturally requisite , that it is usually supposed , and not expressed , and such Collations go commonly under the name of Absolute and Pure Donations , though indeed they are not ) . Or else some requite service or moral action , which may properly make the Benefit to be Praemium , a Reward . All these being sealed , the Seal doth oblige the Benefactor or Donor , because the Instrument is obligatory , if it be for future conveyance . If a present Collation , then the Seal doth confirm the Receivers Right , against any that may hereafter question it . The like may be said of Acknowledgments , as of Constitutions : The Subject may acknowledge his subjection and Seal it ; the Stipulator may cause the Promisor to acknowledge Duty or Debt , and to Seal it : So for Acknowledgments of Debts discharged , Rewards received , Conditions performed , &c. 3. The like may be said de Debito Panae , when Penal Laws are sealed : and of Commissions and Warrants for execution ; but this less concerns our case . So that the use of a Seal as such , is but to testifie in a special manner that the Thing or Instrument is really ours , or that we own it : and so as Amesius saith , to be Testimonium Secundarium , added to the Primary Testimonie of the Covenant or other Instrument . But the special end of the Seal ariseth from the nature and use of the Instrument sealed , and not from the nature of a Seal as such . My opinion now upon the present Controversie , I give you in these Conclusions . Concl. 1. Taking the word as strictly as we use to do in English , the Sacraments are not properly Seals , but Metaphorically . But taking the word Seal more largely , as it signifieth any instituted sign for testimony of ones owning the Instrument , Revealing , Promising , Exhibiting , &c. so they may be called Seals . 2. The Sacraments are not to be applyed to universal or indefinite subjects , but to particulars : Indeed they cannot be entire Sacraments , without particular Application ; that is , either to that particular Congregation , or a particular person : and still the Receptive Application must be personal . 3. Therefore not meer universal , or particular , or indefinite Enunciations are to be used by the Administer , but singulars also . 4. Yet I conceive that as the Universal Enunciation is first to be expressed , so it is that universal that is sealed , though with application to singular persons ; it being not a Collective , but a Distributive Universal ; and not Distributive only in Genera singulorum , but in singula Generum : and therefore may be applyed ad singula Generum . 5. I conceive that God may be said to Seal first the truth of the History of Christs death and blood shed : and also the Truth of the Doctrine of the Gospel , that this Blood was shed as a Ransom for sinners , and that it was for our sins that he dyed . 6. And this quoad institutionem Sacramentorum , may be said to be intended to his universal Church ; but quoad exercitium , & actual●m applicationem , it is directly still to singulars . 7. I conceive also that in the Ministerial act of offering , and saying , Take , Eat , Drink , Christ may be said to Seal his Precept , whereby he hath made it the dutie of man , to Take or Accept an offered Saviour with his benefits , on the Offerers terms . 8. Thus far there is no question but he sealeth to Hypocrites , as well as to true Believers . 9. Concerning the Promise or Testament , we must yet distinctly consider , 1. the Promise it self which goes first . 2. the sealing of this Promise , which is next . 3. the Delivery or Application by offer which is next . 4. the Reception or Acceptance of the thing offered , which is next . 5. the actual efficacie of the Promise in Constituting the Right of the Receiver in the Benefit , which is next . 6. the mutual obligation of each Partie to fulfill the remainder of the Covenant for the future , which is the last . 10. That Seal which properly confirms the Gospel to be true , is miracles and other gifts of the Holy Ghost ; but the Sacraments , though they may do much also to that , as they are a continued publick Commemoration , and so an excellent way of Tradition , yet are they especially Applicatory signs for renewing clear apprehensions , helping memorie , assisting in our Application of the general Promise , resolving our Wills ▪ exciting our affections to a more lively sense of Christs Love , and our sin and Duty , &c. and actually to help us in the Praises of the Redeemer by so solemn and sensible a Commemoration of his Redemption of us . 11. Ministers are Christs Officers in Explication and Application of his Laws and Covenants . 12. Their Application or Explication is no Addition to the sense , nor any making of a new Law or Covenant . Therefore when God saith , Whosoever will Believe , shall have Christ and Life ; and the Minister saith , If thou A. B. wilt Believe , thou shalt have Christ and Life ; The Minister addeth not to the Promise , but applyeth it according to its proper sense ; seeing a universal Enunciation absolutely so called , may be distributed in singula generum , though a Universal secundum quid may be only distributed into Species or genera singulorum . 13. And therefore to seal to that singular Enunciation , is no more then to seal to the Universal , but much less , if it were to that alone . 14. It is Gods Legal Deed of Gift , or Promise written in Scripture , or otherwise expressed , to which the Sacrament is a Seal , and consequently to that singular enunciation , which is but part of the same Promise , and that as it is contained in the universal : but not as it is a thing distinct from the universal Promise , or as supposed to adde to it , or contain more , for sense , in it ; nor to the Application of the Minister , as such . 15. But for the right understanding of this , we must explain this word , to Seal to , which is of several significations : 1. It is one thing to seal to a thing as the Testimonium primarium , to which the Seal is the Testimonium secundarium . So the Instrument is sealed to . 2. It is another thing to seal to a thing as the subjectum materiale obsignatum : so the matter contained in that Instrument is sealed to . 3. It is another thing to seal to a thing as the finis cujus ultimatus : so the good which the partie ultimately receives from that Donation , Contract , &c. as its end , is sealed to . 4. And it s another thing to seal to a thing as the finis cujus proximus , vel propior : and so to our Right to Christ , our Remission , Justification , Adoption , &c. are sealed to . 5. And it s yet another thing to seal to a person as the finis cui : and so God sealeth to us , the forementioned Covenant , &c. I mean that according to its several respects to these things ; the words seal to hath several significations . Now the application , the Right delivered , &c. may be said to be sealed to , as the finis proximus cujus : for it is sealed that it may be delivered and applyed for conveying Right : but these are not sealed to as the subjectum obsignatum : that is the Promise 〈◊〉 Grant it self , whereby Right is conveyed . 16. The Sacraments are not only Seals to the Grant or Promise , but furthermore are Exhibiting or Conferring signs , in subserviencie to the Promise ; as Instruments to solemnize the Collation of Christ and his Benefits . And this seems to be a far more remarkable end of them , then proper sealing : For Sacraments are such kind of signs , as those in the solemnization of marriage , in giving hands , putting on a ring , expressing Consent , &c. Or as the Crowning of a King , or the listing a Souldier : or as a twig , a turf , or a Key in giving possession . So that the main use followeth the meer sealing . 17. As Gods Universal Grant of Christ and pardon is but Conditional ( in form or sense ) to which the Sacrament sealeth ; so the minister that distributeth the Universal to singulars , must do it but Conditionally , If thou A. B. wilt Believe , thou shalt have Christ and Life : So that still it is no Absolute but a Conditional Promise or Grant that is sealed . 18. This Conditional Promise is sealed Absolutely and actually ; for were it sealed only Conditionally , then it were not Actually sealed at all , till the Condition is fulfilled : but the sense would run thus , This Action shall be my Seal , when you believe , or perform some other Condition . But I conceive God sealeth Actually , and therefore Absolutely , before men truly or really believe , when a Minister on his Command and by his Commission doth it . 19. Yet though God Seal the Conditional Promise Absolutely to such as profess to receive it ; that is , though he hereby attest that he owns that Promise as his Act or Deed ; yet doth he not either Exhibite or Convey Right to Christ and his Benefits , nor yet oblige himself for the future , Absolutely , but Conditionally only . For in this Conveyance and Obligation the Grant or Covenant is the principal Instrument , and the sign the less principal ; and both to the same use : and therefore the latter cannot Absolutely Convey , or Oblige the Promiser , unless the first do it absolutely too . 20. God may therefore seal his Promise , and thereupon offer Christ and Life to men that pretended a willingness to Receive it , and yet not actually convey Right to Christ and Life , nor Actually oblige himself to pardon or save the sinner , because the partie may refuse the offer , either refusing Sacrament and all , or only Refusing in heart the benefit offered , at lest as such and on the terms that it s offered on , and on which only it may be had . And so when the sealing use is past , the Sacrament may lose its Conveying and obliging force ( so far as we may say God obligeth himself ) for want of true Reception : and thus it doth with all unsound Believers . I desire the Reader , according to this explanation to understand that which I wrote against Mr. Tombes in my book of Baptism , about the Sacraments sealing to the ungodly . Having said thus much for the opening of my opinion , and the avoiding of Confusion , I return to Mr. Blakes words . And 1. where he saith , The maior is not sealed ; for the Sacraments seal not to the truth of any general propositions , but they seal with application to particular persons : I Reply , They seal no doubt with respect to particular persons ; but that they may not seal both the general Promise and the singular as comprized in it , to that particular person , I hear not yet proved , viz. q. d. Having promised Christ and Life to every one that will Accept him , lest thou shouldst stagger at this my Promise , I own it by this seal . 2. Where he saith , It seals that which supplies the place of the minor ; viz. I give thee Christ : I Reply , 1. It s true ; because this is no addition to the general Grant , but part of its proper sense : For he that saith , I give it to all Believers , saith in sense , I give it to thee if thou be a Believer . Otherwise God sealeth not to what he promiseth not : and were not the singular Enunciation comprehended in the sense of the Universal , you could never prove that the singular is sealed . 2. But what is the meaning of your Minor , which you say is sealed ? Is it an Absolute and simple Proposition or Enunciation , as you express it ? Or is it a Conditional one ? Do you mean , I will give thee Christ on Condition that thou Accept him as offered : or , I will give him Absolutely : And by giving , do you mean proper effectual giving which conveys Right ? or only an offer which conveys not Right till it be Accepted on the terms on which its offered ? If you mean by gift , a meer offer , then it may be sealed Absolutely ; for God doth Absolutely offer , where he doth but Conditionally Give . He doth not say , I will offer you Christ , on condition you will take him ; for he offereth him whether men Accept him or not . If you mean a full gift , and mean the Enunciation to be Absolute , then that man shall certainly have Christ and Life , whether he accept him or not ; or at lest , accepting is no Condition . And then all that God so sealeth to , shall be saved . Nor will it help you to say , that he seals this Absolute Promise but Conditionally : for however , rhe man must needs be saved by such a Gift or Promise it self , though it were never sealed at all . If you mean ( as I suppose you do ) I give thee Christ to be thine , on condition that thou Accept him as offered ; then 1. Why did you express a Conditional Gift , in Absolute terms , leaving out the Condition ? 2. Why then are you so loth to yield that this Conditional Grant is Absolutely sealed , that is , owned by an express sign ; As long as the Grant is but Conditional , yea and the sign it self doth Exhibit or Convey but Conditionally , what danger to say that it sealeth Absolutely ? Is there not more inconvenience in saying that both the Grant is Conditional , and yet also that it is but Conditionally sealed ? 3. You adde , The outward Elements are given on this Condition , that we receive them , that we eat and drink them : Reply , I never gave them but on a higher Condition , viz. If you will take Christ offered , take this which signifieth , &c. And I think Christ never gave them but on condition , that men Accept him as well as the sign ; though when they performed not what they pretend to do , he doth not suspend his act of Tradition : And in such a case it is a Delivering , but not a proper Giving . And I do not think that you use your selves to give the Sacramental signs meerly on condition that men will Take , and Eat , and Drink them : As you charge a further Condition on them , so I conjecture that if they should profess no more , then so to Take the signs , you would not deliver them . Next you argue thus , That which all do not partake of that receive the Sacrament , is not Absolutely , but Conditionally sealed in the Sacrament . But all do not partake of Christ in the Sacrament ; therefore he is not Absolutely , but Conditionally sealed : Reply , 1. What if I should grant all this ? what is it to our present question ? to Seal Christ , is somewhat an uncouth phrase . It is either the Grant or Promise of Christ that you mean , which Gives Christ : or it is the Jus so Given : ( For Christ himself in substance is not Given by the Covenant , otherwise then by giving us Right to him . ) If you mean it of Right to Christ , then this is the Terminus proximus exhibitionis , and the more remote end of sealing ; whereas our Question was of the subject sealed , and not of the end of sealing . And therefore you should not have thought that you conclude the Question , when you speak only to another question . But if by sealing Christ , you mean only sealing the Promise or Grant of Christ and Life in him ; then 2. I deny your major proposition . If you had said only , That which all do not partake of that receive the Sacrament , is not absolutely Given ; I should easily have granted it : for it is Given on condition of Receiving : and even a sealed Grant may be uneffectual to Conveyance , through the interposition of the Dissent and Rejection of him that should receive . But you adde for the confirmation of the major , None can miss of that which God Absolutely Granteth , and Absolutely sealeth ; Reply , 1. But what is this to your major ? was there any mention of Absolute Granting ? This is somewhat a large Addition . 2. And what is this to the question between you and me ? You know and acknowledge , that I say , It is the Conditional Grant that is Absolutely sealed : why then do you dispute against Absolute Granting and Sealing ? This is loss of time to the best of your Readers ; and for the worst , it may make them think my opinion is clean contrary to my own profession . §. 65. Mr. Bl. OR in case the Soul frame any Argumentation , I suppose it is to be conceived to this purpose ; If God give me Christ , he will give me Justification and Salvation by Christ ; but God gives me Christ ; therefore he will give me Justification and Salvation . The major is supposed not sealed : the minor is there sealed : The Elements being tendred by the Minister in Gods stead , and received with my hand , I am confirmed that God gives Christ to my Faith : And the minor being sealed , the Conclusion eo nomine is sealed . The proof of any proposition in a Syllogism , is in order to the proof of the Conclusion ; and so the sealing of any proposition is in order to the sealing of the Conclusion ; which indeed Mr. Baxter grants ; where he sayes that the Proposition that God sealeth to runs thus , If thou do believe , I do pardon thee , and will save thee : Yet several passages in that Discourse , are I confess beyond my weak apprehension . §. 65. R. B. 1. TO your Argument there needs no more to be said then is said to the former . When God hath in one Deed of Gift bestowed on us Christ and Life , Remission , Justification , Adoption , &c. ( 1 Joh. 5.10 , 11 , 12. Joh. 1.11 , 12. ) it must be in case of great ignorance that the person that knows that God giveth him Christ , must yet be constrained by after arguings to acknowledge that he giveth him Justification . And how this argument tends to explain the nature of Sacramental sealing , I neither know , nor see any thing here to help me to know . If you will suppose such an Argument as this used for Application , I would not stick to yield it useful ; What God doth by his Testament give to all men ▪ on condition they will Accept it , that he gives to me on condition I will Accept it . But he gives Christ and Life in him , to all men if they will Accept it ; therefore to me : ( Or if you will say , to all that hear the Gospel . ) Though the use of such an Argument is more for lively Application , then confirmation of the Truth of the Grant. 2. Your supposition that your minor is sealed , and not your major , hath enough said to it . 3. The Sacraments may confirme your faith in Christ as given to you , otherwise then by sealing , viz. as they are signs for Remembrance , Excitation to sense and lively apprehensions of Gods Donation , and as they are signs instrumental in sole Conveyance of the benefit Given , as a twig and a turfe , and a Key in giving possession , and the words and actions of matrimonial solemnization or Contract . 4. It is new Logick to my understanding , that the minor being sealed , the Conclusion eo nomine is sealed : The minor of many an Argument may be true , and the conclusion false . And therefore when the case so falls out , that both minor and conclusion are true , or sealed , it is not eo nomine , because the minor is true , that the Conclusion is so , ( or is sealed , eo nomine because the minor is so ) but because both major and minor are so , and not then neither , but upon supposition that the Syllogism be sound . 5. But to prove this , you say , the proof of any Proposition in a Syllogism , is in order to the proof of the Conclusion : and so the sealing of any Proposition is in order to the sealing of the Conclusion : Reply ; The first is true . 1. But what is this to the matter ? Is it all one to prove it and to be in order to prove it , to seal it and to be in order to the sealing of it ? Is the Conclusion proved on the proof of one Proposition ? No : therefore according to your own arguing , neither is it sealed by the sealing of one Proposition . 2. That the sealing of one Proposition is in order to the sealing of the Conclusion , I deny . 1. It may be a single Proposition that is sealed , not standing as part of a Syllogism : as this , I Give Christ and Life in him to you all that will Accept him . 2. If it be supposed part of a Syllogism , it is enough sometime that the Conclusion be cleared or confirmed , or we enabled igfallibly to gather it , by the sealing of one Proposition : but it is not necessary that it be the very sealing of the Conclusion , to which the sealing of that Ptoposition doth tend . When a Landlord hath sealed a Lease to his Tenant , he hath sealed this Proposition , If A. B. well and truly pay such Rents , he shall quietly enjoy such Lands : suppose the minor to be , But A. B. doth or will well and truly pay such Rents : suppose this minor Proposition either false or uncertain , will you say then that the sealing of the major was in order to the sealing of the Conclusion ? No : the Conclusion is Absolute , therefore A. B. shall enjoy such Lands : but the Proposition sealed is Conditional . It is enough that it secure his Right , if he pay his Rent , and that it enable him infallibly so to conclude , while he performs the conditions , though it tend not at all to seal the Conclusion . We seldom use seals to Syllogisms : and not to Conclusions as such , or eo noimne , because a major or minor Proposition is proved : though the thing sealed may be to other uses made part of a Syllogism . Yet I grant that where the Syllogism is such as that one of the Propositions doth morally contain the Conclusion in sense , though not in terms , there the conclusion is sealed when that one Proposition is sealed : because it is the sense and not meer terms that are sealed ; and undoubted naturals are presupposed in moralitie , and therefore the sealing of one is the sealing of both : For example , if you argue either from a Synonimal term , or from the thing as Defined to the thing as named , or from the Genus to the Species , or from the Species to the Individual ; thus , succinum corroborat cerebrum : At Ambarum , vel electrum est succinum : therefore Ambarum vel electrum corroborat cerebrum : or thus , Privatio visus est naturae malum . Caecitas est Privatio visus : therefore , Caecitas est naturae malum . Or thus , God made every creature : Man is a creature : therefore God made man. Or thus , All men on earth are sinners . I am a man on earth : therefore I am a sinner . In all these , if you seal the major proposition , or affirm it true , you do indeed , though not in terms , affirm or seal the conclusion morally . The confession that you say I make , reacheth no higher . But observe that its only morally that I say you may be said to say or seal the conclusion ; because unquestionable naturals are presupposed in Morals and Legals . §. 66. Mr. Bl. HE that Believeth is Justified and shall be saved ; is his major Proposition . This he saith is sealed unquestionably : when indeed I have ever thought , and yet think , that it is not at all sealed . Sacraments seal not to the truth of any general Proposition , but with particular application as they are dispensed , so they seal ; but they are applyed particularly , Take , Eat , &c. This Mr. Baxter seeth pag. 69. and therefore in that absolute universal Proposition , he finds a particular Conditional Promise , to which he saith God sealeth : If thou believe , I do pardon thee and will save thee . §. 66. R. B. ALL this is answered sufficiently already . Only observe that by shall be saved , and I will save thee , I mean but shall have , or I will give thee present Right to salvation ; For the continuance of that Right , hath more then Faith for its condition . §. 67. Mr. Bl. THat it sealeth not to the truth of the minor Proposition , But I believe , ( he says ) is beyond dispute , giving in his reasons . It should seal then to that which is not written ; for no scripture saith , that I do believe ; so certainly Sacraments do seal ; they seal to that which is not directly written , they seal with particular application , but the man to whom they are applyed hath not his name in scripture written ; they seal to an individual person , upon the Warrants of a general Promise : though I do not say that Proposition is sealed ; yet me thinks this reason is scarce cogent . §. 67. R. B. YOu deny not my assertion , but argue against the reason of it ; as before by telling us what you thought , so here by affirming the contrary certain , you attempt the confutation of mine . To your instance I give these two returns 1. It is equivocation , when our question is of sealing to a thing as the subjectum obsignatum , for to instance in sealing to a person as the finis cui . The seal , that is to application as an end , not to application as the subject sealed . 2. But if you respect not the person as the end of application , but as the party expressed in the Promise which is sealed , then I say , If you can prove that the universal Proposition doth not in sense contain the singulars , so that this singular , If thou believe thou shalt be saved , be not in Moral Law sense contained in this universal , All that believe shall be saved , ( the Law supposing them all to be men and sinners ) then I will prove , that God doth not properly seal to the singulars ; But till then I suspend . §. 68. Mr. Bl. MR Baxter sayes , The great question is , whether they seal to the Conclusion , as they do to the major Proposition ? To which he answers , No , directly and properly it doth not . If the Proposition seems directly to prove the Conclusion , then that which directly confirms any Proposition in a rightly formed Syllogism , confirms the Conculsion . If the Conclusion be not sealed , then no Proposition is sealed , or else the Syllogism is ill-framed . §. 68. R. B. TThis is too new Doctrine to be received without one word of proof . Doth he that sealeth the major of this following Syllogism , seal the Conclusion ? All that truly Receive Christ , are the Sons of God , and shall be saved . Judas did truly receive Christ ; therefore Judas was the Son of God , and shall be saved . I think both Premises must be true , before the Conclusion will thence be proved true . And it is not sealed by God , when it is false . §. 69. Mr. Bl. REasons are given . This Conclusion is nowhere written in Scripture , and therefore is not properly the object of Faith ; whereas the seals are for the confirmation of our Faith ; To which I say , It is written Virtually , though not expresly . That I shall rise in Judgement is nowhere written , yet it is of Faith that I shall rise ; and when I have concluded Faith in my heart , as well as Reason in my Soul , knowing my self to be a Believer as I know my self to be a man , I may as well conclude that I shall rise to Life , as that I shall rise to Judgement . §. 69 , R. B. 1. WHen you oppose Virtually to Expresly , you seem by Virtually to mean in sense , though not in terms . If so , then your Syllogism is tautological . But take it in what sense you will in any propriety , and I deny that it is Virtually written in Scripture , that you or I do Believe , or yet that you or I are Justified and shall be saved . Yet I confess that some Conclusions may be said to be Interpretativè vel secundum loquutionem moralem in Scripture , when but one of the premises is there : but that is when the other is presupposed as being as certain : but of this more anon , where you speak of this subject more largely . 2. To your instance , I say , It is by Faith and natural knowledg mixt that you conclude you shall rise again . The Conclusion participateth of both Premises , as to the ground of its certainty . That it doth sequi , is a right gathered Conclusion , is known only by Reason , and not by Faith : that it is true , is known partly by Reason , and partly by Faith , when the Premises belong to both . Yet though in strict sense , it be thus mixt , in our ordinary discourse we must denominate it from one of the Premises , and usually from the more notable , alwaies from the more Debile . Scripture saith , All men shall rise ; Reason saith , you are a man. Though the Conclusion here par●●●e of both , yet it is most fitly said to be de fide , both because Scripture intended each particular man in the Universal ; and because it is supposed as known to all , that they are men ; and therefore the other part is it that resolveth the doubt , and is the notable and more debile part . It s I know undoubted with you , that Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem . Now though Gods Word in it self is most infallible , yet in respect of the evidence to us , it is generally acknowledged that it is far short of natural principles , and objects of sense , in so much that men have taken it for granted , that the objects of faith are not evident ( of which I will not now stand to speak what I think , but touch it anon ) . Therefore it being more evident that you are a man , then it is that all men shall rise , it is fittest to say the Conclusion is de fide as the more debile part . But can we say so of the present Conclusion in question ? Have you a fuller evidence that you are a sincere Believer , then you have that , All sincere Believers are Justified ? I have not for my part : But it seems by your following words that you have , or suppose others to have ; to which I say ▪ 3. If you have as evidently concluded that Faith is in your heart , ( saving Faith ) as that Reason is in your Soul , & know your self to be a Believer as evidently as you know your self to be a man , then your Conclusion may be denominated to be de fide , as a parte delibiore . But if this be not your case , it is most fit ( for all the mixt interest of the Premises ) to say that it is not de fide , but from the knowledge of your sincerity in the Faith , as a parte debiliore . And if it be your case indeed , you are the happiest man that ever I yet spake with . But I know that no man ordinarily can have such evidence of his sincerity ; yet because I will not speak of you or others by my self , nor judge others hearts to be as bad as my own , or as all those that I have conversed with , we will if you please thus comprimize the difference : All those whose evidence of sinceritie is as cleer as the evidence of their Reason and manhood , yea or more then Scripture evidence , so that Gods Testimony is pars debilior in the Syllogism ; these shall take the Conclusion , that they are Justified , to be de fide : and all the rest shall take the Conclusion to be not de fide , but from the knowledge of themselves : and then let the issue shew whether more will be of your mind or of mine . I think this a fair Agreement . §. 70. Mr. Bl. OTherwise ( saith he ) every man rightly Receiving the Seals , must needs certainly be Justified and saved . I see no danger in yielding this Conclusion ; every man rightly receiving and improving the seals , must be saved and Justified . He that rightly receives the seals , receives Christ in the seals , and receiving Christ , he receives salvation . So he that rightly hears . Hear and your Souls shall live . Isa . 55. So he that rightly prayes . Whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved . Rom. 10. §. 70. R. B. 1. BY Rightly , I meant , having Right to it , and that only in foro Ecclesiae , and not Rectè . But I confess I should have plainlyer exprest my meaning . 2. ●hether you here contradict not your Doctrine of Baptismal Faith , where you suppose Justifying Faith to be the thing promised by us in Baptism , and therefore not prerequisite in it , I leave you to judge , and resolve as by your explication . §. 71. Mr. Bl. ANd no man can groundedly administer the Sacrament to any but himself , because he can be certain of no mans Justification and Salvation ; Vpon the same terms that he knows any man may be saved , upon the same he may give him the Sacrament sealing this salvation . This argument as we heard before , is Bellarmines , and concludes indeed against Absolute seals in the Sacrament , but not against Conditional sealing , as is confessed by Protestant Divines . §. 71. R. B. 1. I know it not to be true of any man that he shall be saved . therefore I may not seal it to any , by your Concession . God-Seals to no falshood ; I know not whether it be true or false that A. B. shall be saved . Yet it is on some of the Opposers principles that I now argue . 2. I desire you not to answer it as Bellarmines argument , but as mine , seeing you choose me to deal with . 3. The Argument makes as much against my asserting the Truth of your Conclusion , as the sealing it : so that let your sealing be Conditional or none at all , I may not so much as affirm to any man whose heart I know not , the Conclusion which you say I must seal . The Conclusion is Absolute , Thou A. B. art Justified and shalt be saved ; though the Major Proposition , or or Universal Grant be conditional . Now if you will Seal this Absolute Conclusion conditionally , then 1. you will sin in the bare affirming it a true Conclusion , before you seal it , if you go but so fat . 2. What is the Condition that you mean ? I suppose true Faith. But if so , then where there is not true Faith , thete you do not Actually seal : For a Conditional sealing , is not Actual sealing till the condition be performed ; for the condition not performed suspends the act . And then you have mistaken in thinking that the Covenant is sealed actually to the unregenerate or ungodly . But if you mean any thing short of true Faith , how can you on that condition seal to any man , that he is Justified , and shall be saved . I do therefore rather choose to say , If thou Believe thou shalt be saved : and thus , as contained in the general Grant , I absolutely seal ; then to say , Thou shalt be saved , and this I seal if thou Believe . Though I say again , I make a small matter of this , and suppose your meaning and mine is the same , for all these words . 4. Where you say , It concludes an Absolute sealing ; I say , No , if it be but to a Conditional Grant , and if Absolute Exhibition or Collation be not added to absolute sealing . §. 72. Mr. Bl. MR Baxter adds , I am sorry to see what advantage many of our most learned Divines have given the Papists here , as one error draws on many , and leadeth a man into a Labyrinth of Absurdities ; being first mistaken in the nature of Justifying Faith , thinking it consists in a belief of the pardon of my own sins ( which is the Conclusion ) have therefore thought that this is it which the Sacrament sealeth . And when the Papists alledge that it is nowhere written , that such or such a man is Justified ; we answer them that it being written , that He that Believeth is justified , this is equivalent . But Mr. Baxte● doubtless knows that many Divines who are out of that error concerning the nature of Justifying Faith , and have learned to distinguish between Faith in the Essence of it and Assurance ; yet are confidently perswaded that the Sacrament seals this Conclusion , knowing that the Sacrament sealeth what the Covenant promiseth to the persons in Covenant , and upon the same terms as the Covenant doth promise it . Now the Covenant promiseth forgiveness of sins ( as Mr. Baxter confesses ) conditionally , and this to all in Covenant , and this the Sacrament sealeth . §. 72. R. B. 1. IF there be any that mistake but in one of those points , when others mistake in them all , those are not the men meant that I speak of . I intended not every man that held your opinion , but only those that held it on the ground and with the worser consequent or defence which I expressed . 2. I shall know whom you mean , when I see the Authors and place in them cited . 3. I think most of our great transmarine Divines who write of it against the Papists , do own that which you acknowledge an error ; and what advantage that will give the Papists , who are so ready to take a Confutation of one Doctrine of the Protestants for a Confutation of all , you may easily conjecture . 4. This Conclusion many confess sealed , If thou A. B. do believe , thou shalt be saved : but not this Conclusion , Thou A. B shalt be saved . 5. I have shewed you that it is one thing to seal to the Promise for form and matter , and another thing to seal to the persons Right to the thing promised . This actual Right is but the end , which is not obtained , till Delivered or offered ; Reception and actual Collation go before ; and then is not the subjectum obsignatum . Your argument I conceive doth nothing for your cause , yea is wholly for mine . Your Conclusion is , therefore this the Sacrament sealeth ; what is this ? why Forgiveness of sins Conditionally , and this to all in Covenant . Here 1. you seem to yield that it is not the Absolute but Conditional Promise which is sealed , which is the main thing that I stood on : 2. You seem to apply the word Conditionally to forgiveness , and n● to sealing : and so to confess that the sealing is actual ; and if actual , then not meerly conditional . For to say I conditionally seal , is to say , It shall be no seal , till the performance of the Condition . But you seem to confess it a seal before of Conditional forgiveness . 3. You seem to acknowledge the general Promise sealed , though with application to particular persons . §. 73. Mr. Bl. ANd as it is an error to hold that to believe my sins are forgiven , is of the nature or essence of Faith , as though none did believe but those that had attained such assurance , ( true Faith hath assurance in pursuit only , sometimes , and not alwaies in possession ) So on the other hand it is a mistake to say , that it is no work of Faith. The Apostle calls it the full assurance of Faith , Heb. 10.22 . and describeth Faith to be the substance of things hoped for ; Faith realizeth salvation which we have in hope to the Soul. A Description of Faith ( saith Dr. Amesius out of a Schoolman ) by one of the most eminent acts that it produceth ; therefore I take that to be a good answer that is here charged with error , that when it is written , He that Believeth is Justified , it is equivalent , as though it were such or such a man is Justified , in case with assured grounds and infallible Demonstrations he can make it good to his own self that he believeth . §. 73. R. B. 1. IF assurance be not of the nature or Essence of Faith , then it is not Faith : for nothing is Faith , but what is of the nature and Essence of Faith : But according to Mr. Bl. assurance is not of the nature or Essence of Faith ( for he saith , it s an error to hold it ) ; therefore according to Mr. Bl. assurance is not Faith. But I suspect by the following words , that by nature and essence , he means the minimum quod sic . 2. That which is but either Pursued or Possessed by Faith , is not Faith it self , ( for nothing is the Pursuer and Pursued , the Possessor and Possessed ; as to the same part : nor will Mr. Bl. I conjecture , say , that a less degree of Faith possesseth a greater ) but according to Mr. Bl. assurance is but pursued or possessed by Faith ; therefore is not Faith. 3. I know none that denyeth Assurance to be a Work of Faith , which Mr. Bl. here saith is a mistake to say , Love and Obedience are wroks of Faith , but not Faith it self . 4. I must have better proof before I can believe that it is Assurance of our own sinceritie , or actual Justification , which the Apostle calls The full assurance of Faith , Heb. 10.22 . Though how far this may concurr , I now enquire not . 5. And as hardly can I discern assurance of our sinceritie , in the description of Faith , Heb. 11.1 . Unless you mean that hope is part of Faith , and assurance the same with hope ; both which need more proof . Hope may be without assurance : and when it is joyned with it , yet it is not the same thing . Only such assurance is a singular help to the exercise of Hope . 6. It s true that Faith may be said , as you speak , to Realize salvation to the Soul ; that is , when the Soul doubteth whether there be indeed such a Glory and Salvation to be expected and enjoyed by Believers , as Christ hath promised , here Faith apprehendeth it as Real or Certain , and so resolves the doubt . But when the doubt is only whether I be a true Believer , Faith resolves it not : and when the doubt is , whether this certain Glory and Salvation shall be mine , Faith only cooperateth to the resolve of it , by affording us one of the Propositions , but not both , and not wholly the Conclusion . 7. I am of Dr. Ames minde that it is one of Faiths most eminent acts , by which it is there described : But so think not they that tell us that is none of the Instrumental Justifying act which is there described . 8. This which you took to be a good answer , is that great mistake which hath so hardned the Papists against us ; and were it not for this point , I should not have desired much to have said any thing to you of the rest , ( about Conditional sealing ) as being confident that we mean the same thing in the main . 9. You forsake them that use to give this answer , when you confine it to those only that with assured grounds and infallible demonstrations can make it good to themselves that they Believe , i. e. savingly . I doubt that answer then will hold but to very few , if you mean by Assured grounds , &c. such as they are actually assured are good and demonstrative . 10. Demonstrations may be infallible , and yet not known to be such to the person : but I suppose that by the word Demonstration , you intend that the partie discerns it to be an infallible Demonstration : which sure intimates a very high kinde of certainty . 11. Yet even in that case , I deny that the general Premise , in the major , is equivalent to the Conclusion , I am Justified and shall be saved ; though I should acknowledge that the Conclusion may be said to be de fide , in that the Major hath the predominant Interest in the Conclusion , if so be that the man have better evidence of his sinceritie , then of the Truth of the Promise . §. 74. Mr. Bl. BVt this is said to be a gross mistake , and thus proved , as though the Major Proposition alone were equivalent to the Conclusion : But here being in our Syllogism , both a Major and a Minor , there is added further , or as if the Conclusion must or can be meerly Credenda , a proper object of Faith , when but one of the Propositions is of Faith , the other of sense and knowledge : Here the Major is confest to be of Faith ; but the Minor , I sincerely Believe , is affirmed to be known by inward sense and self-reflexion . Here I must enter my dissent , that a Conclusion may be Credenda , an object of Faith , when but one of the Propositions is of Faith , and 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 r●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. Go●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 comparison of that which is more evident in nature : The Premises are these , All m●n shall rise again : I am a man ; therefore I shall rise again ( supposing we spe●k of men that dye ) . If the Major which is de fide , were as evident as the Minor , which is not , the Conclusion would be more evident then it is : and if neither were de fide , but both known naturally as the Minor is , the Conclusion would not be de fide , but would be more evident . This I speak that you may not think that I deny the Certainty , Evidence or Necessity of every Conclusion , which I deny to be de fide , either pur●ly , or by prevalent participation . 3. For the Papists , though ofttimes they take the term de fide , as you and I do , for that which is by supernatural Revelation Divine , yet sometimes they take it for any point which is necessary to salvation to be held , without respect to the supernaturality of the Revelation , How Fisher used it , I know not . 4. I think your Conclusion , that Christ hath a true body , is purely de fide , and may be proved by meer Scripture Testimony , without your medium . 5. The advantage that you say the new Crew would have upon denyal of the use of Maximes of known reason , I know not who gives them ( except Veronius and his followers , against whom its long since I read and consented to Vedelius in the main ) . But once again , and once for all , let me tell you , that if the other of your Premises be less evident or proveable then the very Word of God , and be more to be doubted of , then your Conclusion is not de fide . For nothing that is truly de fide , is less evident then the truth of Gods Word , and that part of the word in particular . But yet though in such a case we tell them that the Conclusion is not de fide , yet it follows not that it is untrue , yea or not evident : nor do we therefore deny the use of Reasoning from mediums of lower evidence then Scripture ; much less of clearer evidence . But many consequences may be true , and yet not de fide when one of the Premises is de fide . Note also for the understanding of what I have said concerning the evidence of the objects of Faith , that whereas we do usually so compare Science , Opinion and Divine Faith , as to conclude that Science is an assent both firme , certain and evident ; Divine Faith is an assent , fi●me and certain , but not evident ; Opinion is sometime firme , but never certain or evident ; I do not speak in the language of these Divines and Philosophers , when I ascribe an Evidence to Divine Faith : But then you must understand that the difference is not ( as I conceive ) de re , but de nomine ; For I take not the term evident , in so restrained a sense as they do : As to instance in Rob. Baronius ( that second Camer● ) who saith , Assensus evidens est cum quis per se , hoc est , vi sui sensus aut rationis , absque alterius informatione & testificatione percipit eam propositionem , cui assentitur , esse veram : and he makes that an inevident Assent , cum quis Assentitur propositioni , non quod sensus , aut solida ratio eam veram esse Demonstret : sed vel quod levis & inefficax ratio illud suadeat , vel quod alius testetur eam esse veram ; Philos . Theol. an . p. 148. But I think the term evident , is here too much restrained ; and that with great inconvenience , and some wrong to the Christian Faith. I take that to be properly evident , which is to the understanding truly Apparent , or Discernable ; which hath divers degrees : And the Negative addition ( that it must be absque alterius testificatione ) is not only superfluous , but unsound ; And may appear even from the Authors words ; 1. where he opposeth these two , in describing inevident Assent ; non quod sensus aut solida Ratio eam veram esse demonstret , and sed quod alius testetur eam esse veram . Where he grants that whatsoever solid reason demonstrateth to be true , that is evident . Now I say , that he should not have opposed all Testimony to this . For solid reason doth demonstrate Gods Testimony to be true , and this to be his Testimony . 2. He ascribeth Certainty to Divine Faith , which he describeth to be an Assent , qui nititur certo aliquo aut solido fundamento , non vero levi aut fallaci ratione ; and he noteth diligently , that ad certitudinem assensus requiri , ut fundamentum quo mens nititur dum assensum praebet , non solum ut sit in se certum , sed etiam ut assentienti tale videatur ; nisi enim ille sciat rationem qua nititur esse certam , ejus assensus nullo modo erit certus & stabilis . Now he confesseth that the object of Science must be evident : and here he saith , nisi scia● rationem esse certam . If he must scire certitudinem , then he must scire eviden●iam , if all objects of science are evident . And what is it to know , but to discern or understand a discernable , cognoscible , or evident object ? How then can we scire certitudinem , nisi sciendo aliquam Certitudinis Evidentiam ? I conceive therefore that it is true proper evidence which is allowed to Divine Faith , under this name of Certainty , even by them that say it is not evident ; I know what a stir the School-men make about this point . The Question is not only de Evidentia sidei , but de Evidenti Theologie also , which they distinguish from fides , as habitus primorum principi●rum , & scientia Conclusionum are distinct . Though the most of the School-men go the other way , yet some ( as Henricus Quodlib . 12. q. 2. and Beza Archiepisc . Hispalens . qu. 1. prolog . art . 3. not . 3.4 . ) do affirm our Theology to have Evidence . Aquinas and his followers maintain it to be a Science ; but that is , because they suppose it to be subalternate to the Science of God and the Gloryfied . And therefore Aquin. 22. qu. 1. art . 5. c. denyeth those things to be scita quae communiter & simpliciter s●b fide c●ntinentur , and that because omnis scientia habetur per aliqua principia per se nota , & per consequens visa . But I think that per consequens visa , will not hold without exceptions and limitations ; and I suppose it to be ex principiis per se notis originally : Yet in the foregoing Article , Aquinas grants that though quae subsunt fidei Considerata in speciali non possunt esse simul visa & Credita , tamen in generali sub communi ratione Credibilis sic visa sunt ab eo qui Credit . Non enim Crederet nisi videret ea esse Credenda , vel propter Evidentiam signorum vel propter aliquid hujusmodi . And I easily confess that matters of meer supernatural Revelation are not in themselves evident , nor ab Evidentia ipsius rei must we prove it ; But that we have Evidence of the Veritie of the Conclusions , by the Evidence of the great Principles and the Conexion , I take yet for sound Doctrine . The Scotists in opposition to the Thomists make much a doe on the question Virum Theologia sit Scientia : And if properly Scientia , it seems it must be evident . Scotus lays down four things necessary to Science strictly and properly so called ; 1. Quod sit Cognitio cer●a , i. e. sine deceptione . 2. Quod sit de objecto necessario , & non contingente . 3. Debet esse Causata à Causa Evidenti intellectui , id est , à principiis evidenter notis intellectui ; by which he saith Science is distinguished from Faith which is cognitio obscura , aenigmatica●●● inevidens . 4. Quod hujusmodi principia seu causa ex terminis evidens intellectui debet applicari per discursum Syllogisticum bonum & legitimum ad inferendam conclusionem : and so Science is defined Notitia intellectualis , cert● & Ev●dens alicujus veri , necessarii , evidenter deducti ex princ●p●is necessa●●is pr●us Evidenter notis . Yet Rada saith , the fourth of these is accidental . And I see not but we have even such a rigid strict Science of the objects of Faith. 1. It may be Notitia Intellectualis certa , as all confess . 2. And de objecto necessario . Only let me add , that when we make use of infallible Tradition de facto , in proving the soundness of our Records , that this was Contingens à priori , yet is it necessary à posteriore necessitate existentiae ; and that as to the verity , though it be contingent , whether this or that particular man speak truth , yet considering but the force of objects and common natural inclinations in determining the Will , it may certainly be concluded that as to a whole Nation , or World , some voluntary actions are so Contingent , as that yet they are of a most certainly discernable event : Even men before hand may infallibly know that they will come ●o pass , ( supposing the world to continue Rational ) : As that all this Nation , or all Europe will not famish themselves willfully , and will not hang themselves , &c. is a thing that may as certainly be foreknown , as if it were not Contingent : much more may the Verity of such past actions be known . 3. And that it may have evident principles , shall be shown anon . 4. And then that it is discoursive , is clear . Though Credere it self as it is the quieting and repose or confidence of the minde upon the authority or apprehended Veracity of the Reveale● ▪ is an effect of this discourse seeing siducia is not purely or chieflly , an Intellectual act , nor sidem alicui habere as it signifieth this repose : Yet the Truth received on the Speakers Trust or Credit , is received by the Intellect in a discoursive way . Rada granteth these Conclusions , 1. Theologia secundum se est verè & propriè scientic . 2. Theologia Dei respectu eorum quae funt necessaria secundem se , est verè & propriè scient●a . 3. Theologia in beatis est propriè & verè scientia quoad omnes . 4. Conditiones scientiae . Yet this eighth Conclusion is that Theologia prout est in nobis viatoribu● non est propriè & strictè scientia . And the great Argument to prove it is , prout est in nobis est inevidens , quia principia nostrae Theologiae sunt tantum Credita , so that all the weight is laid on this inevidence Briefly , my reasons for the Evidence of the Object of Divine Faith , are these . 1. If it be evident that Deus est Verax , & Deus haec testatur , that God is true of his Word , and that this is his Word or Revelation , then Faith hath evident principles . But the Antecedent is true ; therefore ▪ Into these principles we resolve all points of Faith : Whatsoever God witnesseth is true ; but the Doctrine of the Resurrection , judgment , &c. God witnesseth or revealeth ; therefore ; That God is true , we have the same Evidence as that he is perfectly good , and that is , that he is God : and that there is a God , I take to be as evident a Truth as any in Nature to Reason , though God himself be so far above our comprehension . That this is a Divine Revelation , hath also its evidence , in evident miracles sealing it to the first witnesses ; and in Evidently Infallible Tradition delivering down to us the Records with the seals . I doubt not to affirm that some humane Testimony affordeth such a Certainty as is unquestionable , because of the Evidence of that Certainty : as that King James was King of England , &c. and of the matter in question we have as great , and in it self far greater . But of this elsewhere . 2. If Divine Faith give us a Certainty without objective Evidence , then it is miraculous or contrary to nature , or at least above it ( not only as rectifying disabled nature , which I grant , but ) as moving man not as man , or the Intellect not as an Intellect , which knows naturally no other Action but upon fit objects , and what is wrought by them : It knoweth no apprehension of truth , but as it is apparent or evidenced truth . To understand this Axiom to be true , All men shall be Judged , and to see no Evidence of its truth , are contradictions . 3. At lest it cannot be concluded in general , that the objects of Faith are not evident to any , in that they were evident not only to the Prophets and Apostles themselves , but to all the Churches in that age where they wrought their miracles . For as the formale fidei objectum , viz. Veracitas Revelantis , is evident to Nature , and so to all that have not lost reason ; so that God himself was the Author or Revealer , was evident to all them whose eyes and ears were witnesses of the frequent Miracles , Languages and Gifts of the Spirit , whereby the truth was then sealed by God. 4. That which hath no Evidence , cannot be Rationally preached to the world : But the Doctrine of Faith may be Rationally preached to the world ; therefore Preaching hath a natural tendency to mens Conversion . It is a shewing men the Evidence of Gospel Truth , and the goodness of Gospel objects , and so thereby perswading men to Believe the one , and Love and Accept the other . He that doth not praedicare Evidentiam veritatis Evangelicae , doth not preach the Gospel , in the first respect , as he that preacheth not the goodness of Christ and his benefits , doth not preach it in the other . Preaching is not like Christs laying on clay and spittle , which hath no natural tendency to open the eyes : For the effect of Preaching , as such , is not miraculous , no nor supernaturally otherwise then as the Doctrine preached being of supernatural Revelation , may be said to be a supernatural Cause , and so relatively the effect called supernatural : though the same effect as proceeding from the Spirit which is a Concause , or superior Cause , may be truly called supernatural . 5. That which may be discerned to be certain Truth , without special or extraordinary Grace , even by wicked men and Divels , hath some evidence which causeth this discerning or belief : 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 m●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 u● 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 believe ; from whence the Conclusion will follow , I shall be pardoned and saved . And I infer , the Major being sealed , the Conclusion that rightly issues out of it , having its strength from it , is sealed likewise ; sealed to him that can make good that Assumption , But I Believe , and upon these terms that he be a believer . §. 76. R. B. 1. THe difference is so small that were it not for some scattered by-passages , I should scarce have replyed to you . 2. All the quarrel ariseth from the divers understanding of the term sealed . I suppose that you include the confirming of the Receiver , and the conferring of Right to the Benefit , both which I have said are done Conditionally , as being to follow the Delivery and Reception ; whereas I take it for the Testimonium secundarium , or that Obsignation whereby the Instrument is owned : the following effects belonging to it in a further respect . I ever granted that by the sealing of the Conditional Promise , the Believer hath a singular help to raise the Conclusion , and be confirmed in it ; but not a help sufficient , without the discerning of his own Faith , which is the Assumption . So that if you will , participaliter and consequenter , the Conclusion may be said to be sealed to him that hath the Condition ( whether he see it , o● not ) . But totaliter & directè only the Conditional grant is sealed . 3. The Conclusion issues from , and hath its strength from both Premises jointly , and no more from one alone , then if it were none at all : and therefore where only one of the Premises is sealed , and the other unsealed , there the Conclusion can be but as I said , participaliter & consequenter sealed : And though I grant thus much to you for reconciliation , yet I conceive it unfit to say at all , as in proper speech , that the Conclusion is sealed : which I make good by this Argument . Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem , vel deteriorem . At Propositio non obsignata est pars debilior vel deterior : therefore Conclusio sequitur Propositionem non obsignatam . And so it is on the same grounds to be denominated , not sealed ; as a Conclusion is to be denominated Contingent , when one of the Premises is Contingent and the other Necessary ; or to be Negative , when one of the Premises is Negative and the other Affirmative ; or to be Particular , when one of the Premises is Particular and the other Universal ; And therefore I still say , that it is fittest for you and me to say , that this Conclusion , Thou A. B. art Justified , and hast Right to Salvation , is an unsealed Conclusion : till you can prove the Minor sealed , Thou A. B. art a sincere Believer . For my part , I know not what objection can be made against either part of the fore-recited Argument , ( the major being a Common Canon or Rule that holds in all Figures , and the Minor being yielded by your self ) else I would answer to it . §. 77. Mr. Bl. MR. Baxters fourth and fifth Positions in the closing up of his Discourse should be considered , The Sacrament sealeth to Gods part of the Conditional Covenant , and sealeth this Conditional Promise , not Conditionally but absolutely , as of an undoubted Truth . To which an easie answer may be given , in order to a fair Reconciliation . When the Covenant tyes to the Condition , and the Sacraments seal upon the same terms that the Covenant tyes , the seal is properly Conditional , in case there is any such thing in the world as a Conditional seal . Neither is this Conditional Promise any absolute undoubted Truth , but upon supposal of the Condition put , and so both Promise and Seal absolutely bind . §. 77. R. B. 1. I Never heard of , nor knew a Conditional sealing in the world : though I have oft heard of the effects of Obligation and Collation of Right to be Conditional , which are not only separable from the Terminus proximus of sealing , but also are directly the effects of the Covenant , Promise , Testament , &c. only , and but remotely of the Seals , inasmuch as that Seal is a full owning of the Instrument of Conveyance . Yet such a thing as a Conditional sealing may be imagined , seeing sealing is a Moral Civil action , and so dependeth quoad formam on the will of the Agent after the matter is put ; the Agent may if he please put the matter now , and introduce the form upon a future Condition ( or a present , or a past ) as if he should set the wax and material seal to a Deed of Gift , with this addition , I hereby seal to this , or own it as my deed , if such a man be now living in France ; or if such a Ship be safe arrived : or if such a man shall do such a thing ; otherwise this shall be no seal . But such exceptions or conditions being alwaies added to the Instrument or Principal obligation or conveyance , and being of no use as to the seals only , I never heard of such , nor I think ever shall do . For if all these or any of these Conditions be in the Deed or Obligation , the Seal doth but confirm that Conditional Obligation , though it be absolutely and actually a Seal : and therefore doth not oblige the Author actually , but conditionally : and therefore to feign a Conditional sealing , besides the conditional Covenanting or Granting , seems very useless and vain , to say no more . 2. I confess that neither Promise nor Seal binde absolutely , till the Condition be performed ( which I pray you remember hereafter , if you be tempted to think any person in Covenant with God ( the mutual Covenant where both stand obliged ) before they perform the Condition of the first benefits or right ) . But when you say that the Conditional Promise is not any absolute undoubted Truth , but upon supposal of the Condition put , you make me see still the necessity of mutual forbearance , and that all our writings must have an allowance , as it were , in respect to some inconsiderateness ; and the Authors not to be charged with holding all the Doctrines which they write . I dare not say it is Mr. Blakes judgment , that Gods conditional Promises be not absolute undoubted Truth , till men perform the condition . 1. Though they are not Absolute Promises , yet they are Absolutely and not Conditionally true : Otherwise either it must be said , that till the condition be performed , they are Actually false , and Conditionally true , or else that they are neither capable of Truth or Falshood . The former I will not dare to supppose from you ; nor yet the latter . For whether you put it in this form , Whosoever will Believe , shall be Justified : or in this , If thou wilt Believe , thou shalt be Justified : there is no question that both must be either true or false ; and not like an Interrogation that is capable of neither . 2. And then as it is an Absolute Truth , so it is an undoubted Truth : For Veraci●as Divina est formale objectum fidei : and if Gods Truth be not undoubted , then our Faith hath an uncertain Foundation , and Christianity is not undoubtedly a true Religion . But I charge none of these on you , as not doubting but it is an oversight . §. 78. Mr. Bl. WHen Caleb had engaged himself , He that smiteth Kiriath-Sepher and taketh it , to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife ▪ Othniel the Son of Kenaz taking it , there was an absolute tye upon him for performance , Josh . 15 , 16 , 17. When Saul promised his Daughter to David on this condition , that he would bring him an hundred of the foreskins of the Philistins , 1 Sam. 18.25 , David having made it good with advantage , now there is an absolute tye upon him . §. 78. R ▪ B ▪ THis is nothing but what is granted . I yield that God is not as it were obliged till men performe the Condition . But the Question is whether he Absolutely sealeth before , and not whether that Seal oblige before . § 79. Mr. Bl. EVen the Arminians Conditional incompleate Election , upon Condition of Faith and perseverance , they confess is absolute and compleat , upon supposal of Faith and perseverance . This I take to be Mr. Baxters meaning , that upon supposal of Faith it Absolutely sealeth , which I willingly grant : but it is administred to many who never put in that Condition , nor come up to the terms of God , that believing they may be saved , and so in our sense it sealeth Conditionally . §. 79. R. B. 1. I Have better expressed my own meaning . It is pitty that the Reader should be troubled with so much , about so low a question , which of us two doth best express our meaning ? but that I hope he may gather some things more useful on the by . In your sense , if it be according to your terms , God doth not actually Seal at all to any but the Godly , which is my maine Argument against you . A Conditional seal , is not a seal till the Condition be performed . §. 80. Mr. Bl. ANd I can make nothing else of Mr. Tombes his ▪ Aptitudinal and Actual seal , but that the Sacrament hath an Aptitude to seal in an Absolute way to all that communicate : it doth Actually seal to Believers and Penitent ones . §. 80. R. B. 1. I Perceive Mr. Tombes and you are more of a minde then I was aware of . 2. Sealing of , must not be confounded with sealing to , as respecting the end : nor the next end , which is Essential to the Seal , ( as the Terminus to the Relation ) with more separable ends . It is in regard of the first only that I spake against Mr. Tombes , and affirmed it to be Actual and not only Aptitudinal , but not in regard of the Obligation ( as we may speak ) on God , or the actual conveyance of Right , which follow the condition , which I desire Mr. Tombes to take notice of , according to my foregoing explication , if he mean to Reply to that . §. 81. Mr. Bl. NEither let any think that here I seek a starting hole to recede from any thing that heretofore I have published on this subject . In my answer to Mr. Tombes , pag. 99. I explain my self no otherwise , having quoted Dr. Ames and Mr. Rutherford , in the words now recited , I there add , The Conditional seal of the Sacraments is made Absolute , by our putting in the Condition of believing , &c. In case my answer had been in Mr. Baxters hand when his Appendix came out , as he saies it was not , that he might have seen how I explained my self , I suppose he would have seen that in the result of the whole I little differ from him , so that I can scarce see , that when the matter is brought home , that I have any adversary . §. 81. R. B. 1. IT is so rare a thing for men to manifest so much ingenuity and self denyal and impartial love to the Truth , as freely to recant what they have once asserted when they finde it a mistake , that if this had been your case , I would not have been one that should have blamed you for it , or charged you with unconstancy or levity . To err , is common to all men : but freely to recant it , is not so . I never write , but with a supposition that I shall manifest the weakness of my Intellect , and do that which needs reformation . 2. I did not so much as pretend you to be my Adversary ; I did defend you , and not argue against you : and therefore you have little need to perswade me to have lower thoughts of our differences then I did express , or that you and I were no adversaries . But though I make light of our seeming difference about sealing , I must intreat you to remember , that I not only maintain my former Assertion , that the Conclusion , I A. B. am Justified , is not de fide , but that I account it a matter of far greater moment . It hath been too common Doctrine among the most renowned Divines , that it is not only de fide , but every mans duty also , yea a part of the Creed , and so a fundamental , for to Believe that our sins are remitted , ( for so they expound the Article of Remission of sins ) . I will not name the Authors , because I honor them , and would not seem to disparage them ; and the Learned know them already : yea they earnestly press men to Believe the pardon of their own sins in particular , and tell them that they have but the Faith of Devils else . By which dangerous Doctrine , 1. most men are perswaded to believe a falshood : for most are not forgiven . 2. The careless world is driven on faster to presumption , to which they are so prone of themselves . 3. Painful Ministers are hindred , and their labors frustrated , whose business is first to break mens false hopes and peace ; which they finde so hard a work , that they need not resistance . The ungodly that I deal with , are so confident that their sin is forgiven , and God will not damn them for it , that all that I can say is too little to shake their confidence , which is the nurse of their sin . 4. Gods word , yea the Articles of our Creed , must be abused to do Satan this service , and mens Souls this wrong . All the world cannot finde so strong a prop to the Kingdom of the Devil , nor so powerful an encouragement to presumption or any sin , as mistaken Scripture ( either misinterpreted or misapplyed ) . 5. When wicked men , that have but the Faith of Devils , are immediately required to believe the pardon of their own particular sins , and this made to be de fide , God is dishonored with the charge of such untruths , as if falshoods were de fide , and God commanded men to believe them . And for the Godly themselves , it hath in a lower degree many of the same inconveniences . If there be any one that hath as good Evidence of his soundness in Faith , Love and Repentance , as that the Word of God is true , and all sound Believers are Justified ; what is such a man to many a thousand that have no such Evidence ▪ yea and for that man , it is impossible that his Evidence should be as constant , as Scripture Evidence , though it were as full . Scripture Evidence varieth not , as the Evidence of Grace doth in our mutable unconstant Souls : But for my part I never yet saw the face of that sober man ( to my knowledge ) who durst say , That he was as sure or as confident of his own sincerity , as of the Truth of Gods Word , and particularly of that Promise , He that Believeth shall not perish , but have Everlasting life . And as I have oft said already , The Conclusion may not be said to be de fide , unless the other Proposition he as evident as that which is de fide ▪ because Conclusio sequitur partem deteriorem . Yea let me be bold to grow a little higher , and to tell you that it seems to me impossible and a contradiction that any man should be more certain that he Believeth sincerely , then he is that Gods Word is true , or that the Promise is Gods Word , which he doth Believe . For the truth of God in his Word , is the formal object of Faith , without which there can be no Faith. No man therefore can be more certain that he believes truly , then he is that Gods Word is true : For to Believe , is to apprehend the certain Truth of the Word . And none can be more certain that he apprehends the word as certain , then he is that the word is certain . If you say , I am certain that I believe the certainty of the word , but weakly : I answer , At lest then the saving sincerity of your Faith will be as uncertain to you , as the word is , if not the being of that Faith. And then there is no more certainty , I think , rationally and ordinarily , then there is Evidence . So much for that Controversie , and so of all , so far as I have observed , which Mr. Blake hath with me , or hath called me to give an account of my judgement . Whether the Covenant of Grace require perfection , and accept sincerity . THough I have done with what Mr. Blake saith to me , and have no desire to do any thing unnecessary in a way of Controversie : yet because it is of the like nature with a subject formerly handled , or tends to clear up some things about it , I will very briefly touch on his Arguments , pag. 107.108 . upon this Question . §. 82. Mr. Bl. A Second opinion is , that the Covenant of Grace requires perfection in the exactest way , without help of these mens distinctions , in an equal degree with the Covenant of Works , but with this difference ; in the Covenant of Works , there is no indulgence or dispensation in case of failing , but the penalty takes hold , the Curse follows upon it : But the Covenant of Grace , though it call for perfection , such is the exactness of it , yet it accepts of sincerity , such is the qualification of it through Grace , or the mercy in it . If I should take up any opinion in the world for the Authors sake , or those that have appeared as Patrons of it , then I should embrace this : The Reverence deservedly due to him that I suppose first manifested himself in it , hath caused it to finde great entertainment . But upon more then twenty years thoughts about it , I finde it labouring under manifold inconveniences . §. 82. R. B. 1. IT may seem audaciousness in a young Divine to question that which you shall now so considerately deliver , after more then twenty years thoughts . But no prejudice must hinder us from a further enquiry after the Truth . 2. I began to conjecture that the Reverend person that you mean is Mr. Ball ; and yet methinks , you should not suppose him the Author : It is therefore sure some one much elder . 3. For the thing it self , if I may shoot my bolt , upon a shorter deliberation , I conceive , that all your difference with the men of that Judgement , is occasioned by the Ambiguity and various acception of the word Covenant of Grace , which in my judgement , you ought to have removed , by distinguishing , before you had argued against their opinion . The term Covenant of Grace , is sometime taken strictly for the Contract alone ; either 1. for the full Contract , which is mutual or by both parties , which is most properly called a Covenant : Or 2. for the engagement of one part only : 1. either for Gods Promise . 2. or mans . Herein the Condition is implyed , not as commanded , but as tendred . Now it is certain that taking the Covenant in this restrained sense , it doth not command Perfection of obedience , for it commands nothing at all : nor doth it propound it as the Condition , for then we were undone . But then it must be known that this is too restrained a sense for us ordinarily to use the word Covenant in ; God hath made no such Covenant with us , which is not a Law in one respect , as well as a Covenant in another : He layes not by his Soveraignty in Covenanting . Nay they are all more properly called Laws then Covenants : Even the Promise it self is most properly Lex Gratiae Remedians , Like an act of Oblivion or Pardon to a Nation of Rebels . Yet comparatively , the Law of Grace is far more fitly called a Covenant then the Law of Nature ( which perhaps is never so called in Scripture ) , because the Promissory part is the predominant part in the Law of Grace , the precept being but subservient to that ; but the preceptive part is most predominant in the Law of nature ; the Promise being not so much as expressed by Moses , and obscure in nature it self , so that it will hold great dispute , whether God were obliged at all to Reward man with heavenly Glory , yea or any proper Reward ( besides non-punishment which is improperly a Reward ) . The Lutherans are the leaders of that evil custom and conceit of denying the Gospel to be a Law. 2. In the next place therefore the word Covenant of Grace is taken for the New Law , containing Precept , Prohibition , Promise and Threatning . And here it is taken 1. so narrowly as to comprize only the Precept of Believing , with the Promise and Threatning annext , as being indeed the principal parts ▪ 2. Sometime more largely , as containing also the Precepts that Christ hath given the Church since his coming , that were not before given : Principally that of Believing Jesus to be the Christ , and also those of Ministery , Ordinances , Church-Assemblies , &c. together with the Doctrines or Articles of Faith which he since revealed . 3. Sometime it is more largely taken for that whole Systeme of Doctrines , Histories and Laws ( Precepts , Promises , and Threats ) which directly concern the Recovery of faln mankinde . 4. Sometime for as much of these as was delivered before Christs coming , in Promises , Prophesies and Types , &c. 5. Sometime for as much of these as yet remains in force , whether delivered to the Church before the Incarnation or since , ( for many Covenants or Evangelical Promises and Precepts , are ceased now that were in force before : as that Christ should be born , and they should accept his birth , &c. ) This last sense , containeth the Doctrine of Redemption by Christ , and the History of his birth , life and Death and Resurrection ( as Narrations of the occasion , end and matter are usual appurtenances of a Law ) as also the Precepts 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 ●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 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 ●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 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 Rul● , 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 th●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 unsavory , words that I have let fall : And I must desire you not to suppose that I judge of all the rest of your Book , as I do o● this which I have here Replyed to . I value the Wheat , while I help you to weed out the Tares . Pardon my confident Concluding you in the error , and my self in the Truth : whether it be from the convincing self-revealing nature of Light ; or from the common unhappy fate of the deluded ; I must leave you and others to judge by the Evidence that is in my arguments , whatever further evidence I may have my self within ; doubtless the various state of Intellects , doth cause a strange variety of apprehensions , of those objects which are in themselves the same . And words be but defective signs : There is something in Sensation and Intellection , which words cannot fully sh●w to another . It is but the Species and not the thing it self which you see in this Glass . My most exquisite description of my own Tast and the sweetness of what I tast , will not cause another to tast that sweetness . And there is somewhat like this in Intellection it self ; for though I confess my self ignorant what manner of thing our Intellection will be , when we are out of the flesh ; yet now me thinks I perceive that it doth in some sort participate of sense , and that vid : August . de Trinit . li. 5. c. 1. initio . Sen●io me Intelligere , is a speech not wholly void of Truth . I confess also that I should have little modesty or humility , if I should not think more highly of the understanding of your self and so many Reverend and Learned Brethren who dissent from me in several points here debated , then of mine own . But yet we must prove all things , and not so trust to other mens eyes as to shut our own ▪ or refuse to give credit to our sight . They may far excell me in many other things , though they mistake in this . I remember Pauls , If we or an Angel from heaven , &c. And I remember Tertullians , Non ex personis probamus fidem , sed ex fide personas ( li. Prescript . adv . haer . c. 3. ) And Irenaeus his , Presbyteris adhaerere oportet qui & Apostolorum doctrinam custodiunt , & cum Presbyterit Ordine sermonem ●anum custodiunt , &c. ( li. 4. c. 44. ) And Cyprians , Quae ista obstinatio est , quae praesumptio , humanam traditionem Divinae dispositioni anteponere ? nec animadvert●re , indignari & irasci Deum , quoties Divina praecepta solvit & praeterit humana traditio . Epist . 74. ad suba●an . p. 229. And many a one of Austins yet plainer then these , to the same purpose are commonly known . Paul himself could do nothing against the Truth , but for the Truth , as having no Authority given him to destruction , but to Edification . I am willing to stoop to the judgment of my betters as far as is Reasonable ▪ Conscionable and Possible , and if no further , I hope I may be excused : when I see plain Reason against them , it is unreasonable to subscribe to the opinions of the most learned : when Scripture is against them , it were dishonest and unconscionable : And when they are one against another , to assent to all is impossible . In such a case , I must needs bear the Accusations of one party , who think me Arrogant , Proud and Self conce●●ed , as supposing my self to be wiser then they . But I have long been studying and Preaching , ( and I think practising ) that necessary and excellent Duty , of being so contented with Gods sole approbation , as those that know they stand or fall at his bar : and therefore must esteem it a very small thing to be judged by man. I have long valued and believed that saying of Austin ( commonly cited , and found , lib. 3. de Trinit . cap. 6. the very last words ) Contra Rationem nemo sobrius ; Contra Scripturas nemo Christianus ; Contra Ecclesiam nemo pacificus . In the point of Faiths Instrumentality , and the nature of the justifying act , which I differ from you in , I am constrained upon all these three grounds to my dissent . 1. Lest by renouncing my Reason , I should cease to be sober . ( Though yet I think sober men may be contrary minded , not seeing these Reasons ) . 2. L●st by forsaking the Scripture , I should cease to be a Christian , ( Though Christians that observe nor , or understand not that the Scripture is against you in this , may judge as you ) ▪ 3. Lest by contradicting the Church , I should cease to be peaceable ( ●o Though men otherwise peaceable may be drawn to it through prejudice ) ▪ If you will bring one sound Reason , one word of Scripture , or one approved writer of the Church ( yea or one Heretick , or any man whatsoever ) for many hundred years after Christ ( I think I may say ▪ 1300 at lest ) to prove that Christ as Lord or King is not the object of the Justifying act of Faith , or that Faith Justifieth properly as an Instrument , I am concented so far to lose the Reputation of my Reason , Understanding , Reading , and , Memory . For though I have not read all that hath been written for so many hundred years , yet I have read most of the Writers of great note , ( except the most ▪ Voluminous , which 〈◊〉 but part of ) and by that much , I see so far into the sense and language of those times , that I dare stand to the hazard of this adventure ▪ I speak this because you tell me , that there was scarce a dissenting voice among our Divines that are against me about the Instrumentality of Faith. And , if there cannot be brought one man that consenteth with them for 1200 , or 1400 years after Christ , I pray you tell me whom a humble , modest , peaceable man should follow ▪ were he never so much ready to deny his own understanding ? Because a word , or an opinion that is unsound , hath got possession of a little corner of the world for about 150 years ; therefore I am suspected as singular and as a Novilist , for forsaking it . Whereas it is to avoid singularity , and notorious Novelty , that I assent not to your way . The same I say about the Interest of mans Obedience , in his Justification as continued and consummate in Judgement . If either Clemens ▪ Roman ▪ Polycarp ▪ Ignatius , Justin Martyr , Irenaeus , Tertullian , Origen , Athonago●as , Tatianus ▪ Clem. Alexand. Minutius F●elix , Arno●●us , Lactantius , Cyprian , Athanasius , Eusebius , Greg. Nazianzen , Epiphanius , Cyrill . Hierosol ▪ Synesius , Cyrill Alexandr . Macarius , Hierome , Salvian , Vincentius Lirin . Vigilius , or any Councel were of your minde in any one of these points , and against mine , then I will confess , at lest my supine negligence in reading , or my very faulty memory in retaining their words . And for Austin , Chrysost . and others , of whom I have read but the lesser part , I do strongly conjecture by that part , at their sense , and that they concurr with the rest . If you say that the Fathers had their errors , and all this is but humane Judgement , and all men are fallible , I confess all this to be true : But as I still say , that Contra. Ecclesiam nemo pacificus , so I desire leave to Judge those Brethren that oppose me , as fallible , and subject to error , as all the Primitive Fathers were : and therefore that I may be no more blamed or thought singular for contradicting them , then they are for contradicting the Primitive Church ; I know as Austin saith de Civitate Dei , li. 22. c. 30. Servandi gradus erant Divini muneris ; ut primum daretur liberum arbitrium , quo non-peccare posset homo ; novissimum , quo peccare non posset ; atque illud ad comparandum meritum ; hoc ad recipiendum praemium pertineret . And the case of the Intellect being the same , we must stay til this time of Reward be come , before we shall receive our non posse errare . I know no Brother that opposeth me , doth pretend to Infallibility . All that I desire by my far greater advantage of humane Testimony , is but to expugn prejudice , that I may stand on even ground with them that contend with me : And could I but prevail for this , that the cause might be decided by meer Scripture-reason , and humane Authority wholly stand by , and the Reader could but impartially consider things , without being , byassed to any side or party , as if he knew not what any man else doth judge of it , I should then make little doubt of the good issue of the Controversie . The most that I meet with , that explain against my judgement , are they that confess that they know not what it is , or else apprehend it to be what it is not : but whatever it is , some that they value are against it , and that is it that satisfieth them that I am in an error . I do unfeignedly desire that in dark Controversies beyond their reach , the unlearned people would more regard the generality of sober Godly Divines , then any single and singular Teacher ; yea though it fall out that he be in the Truth , as long as the Evidence of that Truth is out of their reach . But this may not encourage any to shut their eyes , or to neglect to search after the Evidence which they might discern , much less may it excuse such unfaithfulness in Divines themselves ; nor yet may it encourage any to captivate their judgement to a party , against the general judgement of the Church : For if I were on one side , and all the Divines in England on the other , there is yet the same reason to prefer all the first Churches , before all them , as there is to prefer all them before me . In a word , I shall ever think him more culpably singular , who differeth from Christ , and his Apostles , and all his Church for 1200 or 1400 years , then he that differeth from any party now living , and differeth not from them forementioned . And how the case stands in this between me , and those Reverend Divines that oppose me , in the foresaid points of difference , I am heartily content to refer to any sober , impartial Reader , that takes not things on trust from others , nor judgeth of the Doctrine of antient writers , by any imperfect dismembred parcels . Georgius Calixtus , Epitom . Theolog. Moral . pag. 463. INterrogati quae fides nostra , quae doctrina , respondemus eam esse fidem & doctrinam nostram , quam Complectitur symbolum Apostolicum , symbolum Nicaenum , Constantinopolitanum , & Athanasianum , Anathematismi Ephesini : Confessio Chalcedonensis : Quae Nestorianorum & Eutichianorum reliquiis , quinta & sexta synodi opposuerunt : Quae item Pelagianis Africana plenaria , sive ut vocari solet milevitana synodus & Arausicana secunda synodus opposuerunt . Haec symbola hae confessiones & declarationes continent , non modo quae Credere , sine quibus fidem & assensum prabere hominem Christianum oportet , & sine quibus creditis atque cognitis salvari nequit ; sed illis , etiam qui haec ipsa docendo tractant , & aliis exponunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quam teneant praescribunt . Quae autem hisce symbolis confessionibus & declarationibus comprehenduntur è Sacra Scriptura hausta sunt : quippe in iis quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi , &c. Denique exercemus nos ad conscientiam habendam sine offensa apud Deum & homines semper . Lutherus , referente Hopffnero Saxon. Evangel . p. 110. NIhil pestilentius in Ecclesia doceri potest , quam si ea quae necessaria non sunt , necessaria fiant . Hac enim tyrannide conscientiae illaqueantur , & Libertas fidei extinguitur ; mendacium pro veritate , Idolum pro Deo , Abominatio pro sanctitate colitur . I conclude with that of Rup . Meldenius elsewhere , once before cited , Paraenes . ( citante C. Bergio ) F. 2. Verbo dicam : si nos servaremus , in Necessariis Unitatem ; in Non-necessariis Libertatem , in Utrisque charitatem , optimo certe loco essent res nostrae . Ita fiat . Amen . FINIS . POSTSCRIPT . HAving perceived by a friend that perused these Papers since the Printing of them , that the n. 5th § . 11. p. 25. against Mr. Blake , is through too great brevity like to be misunderstood , I thought meet to adde this Explication . I distinguish between the Real Operations and Mutations on mans soul , by Objects ; and the Conveyance of Right to several Benefits by the Covenant of God. It is not the former that I speak of in that place . I confess that as the Apprehension of one of Gods Attributes , makes one effect on the soul , and the apprehension of another makes another effect , so the apprehension of Christs Kingdome , Righteousness , Death , Obedience , Intercession , Judgement , &c. do make also their several Impressions according to the Nature of the thing apprehended . But I utterly deny that it is so in Conveying Right to these , as much as I deny that Justification is Sanctification , or a Real Change of our Qualities as it is . This therefore is my Argument : If the Apprehension of Christs Righteousness , and no other Act , should strictly be the Justifying Act of Faith , and that eo nomine , because it is the object of that apprehension which is the matter of our Justification , then it would follow , 1. That the Apprehension of nothing else is the Justifying Act. 2. And that we have Right to every other particular Mercy eo nomine , because we apprehend that Mercy , and so our Right to every particular Benefit of Christ , were Received by a distinct Act of Faith , But the Consequent is false . Therefore so is the Antecedent . The minor only requires proof : which is proved by the tenour of the Covenant of Grace , which Giveth us Christ , and with him all things : He that hath the Son hath Life : He that believeth on him shall not perish , nor come into Condemnation . As many as Received him , to them gave he power to become the sons of God. So that one entire faith , which is the Receiving of Christ as he is offered , that is , as our Saviour and King , is the Condition of our Right to all particular Benefits . Godliness hath the promise of this life , and that to come . It is a womans taking such a man for her Husband that Gives her first Interest in him , and then in all that he hath : It is not accepting this house , and that Land , and that Servant , &c. that gives her a distinct right in them . There is not a marrying to all these , and a particular Acceptance of every of his Goods and Chattel requisite to a right in them , though there be to a use of them . 2. And the Opinion being utterly unproved is sufficiently confuted . In what Book that ever was written have these nice distinguishers proved their Doctrine by Scripture or sound reason ? Lex non distinguit , ergo , &c. 3. And it discovers its own absurdity : For if this be true , then to apprehend Christs death is the only act that gives right to that , and to apprehend his obedience to that ; and to apprehend Adoption is the only act that gives right to that , and so of all other benefits : So that there should be one act of Faith giving right to Christ himself , and another giving right to pardon , another to sentential Justification , another to Adoption , another to the Spirit and Sanctification , another to Perseverance , another to Glory : Yea one to every particular gift or part of Sanctification ; and one to the pardon of every particular known sin that is pardoned : One to the Gospel written , another to the Ministry , one to health , another to life , and one to every blessing . And so that act of faith which Receives Adoption should not Justifie , nor that which Receives Christ himself neither directly : but only that which receiveth Justification . Whereas it is one Reception , or Act of faith morally taken ( Apprehending the entire object ) that God hath made the Condition of his Promise . So that to apprehend Christ as the Donor of Glory , doth as much towards our Justification , as apprehending him as Justifier : And to Believe in him as our Sanctifier and King , doth as Really conduce to our Justification , and as much , as the apprehending him as one that will pardon our sins . He that believeth shall be saved , is the simple Scripture doctrine . 4. And if all this were not so , yet it is the apprehending of Christ as King according to them then , that must be the Pardoning and Justifying act , more then as a Sacrifice : For as Satisfier and a Ransome , he only meriteth our Pardon and Justification . But to pardon by Grant , is unquestionably an act of Soveraignty as such : It being not the pardon of a private injury , but a publick Crime that we have to speak of . And to Justifie by Plea is Christs act as an Advocate , and not as a Sacrifice . And to Justifie by sentence is Christs act as Judge : So that if their own Doctrine did hold ( of the diversifying of our Right by the diversity of the formal reason of the object apprehended ) then would it but infallibly prove against them , that it is the Receiving of Christ as King and Judge that is the Act of Pardoning and Justifying faith , more then the Receiving him as a Sacrifice or Ransome . FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A26864-e1150 * * Seneca Epist . ad Luc. 102. Non debuit hoc nobis esse propositum , argutias serere , & Philosophiam in ●as angustias , ex sua Majestate detra●ere . Quanto s●tius est ire aperta via , & recta , quam sibi ipsi flexus disponere , quos cum magna molestia debeas relegere ? Neque enim quicquam aliud istae Disputationes sunt , quam inter se peritè captantium lusus . * * Yet ( if you be able to believe him ) he tels his Reade● he is sure there is no Pepper sprinkled throughout his Discourse , nor is he Couscious to himself of the least bitterness , &c. * * Indeed I more desired in Mr. K. a conscience so tender as would have strained at some of all those palpable untruths in matter of fact , then a milder language to my self . But he tels us in his Epistle , that Aliquando innocentius delinquendum erat , ne deessent in quibus condonandis , &c. Et quidni mihig ratuler faelicia quadam erratula , &c. Whether he think also that he should innocentius delinquere , & faeliciter errare , that there may be matter for the honour of Gods Grace , as well as mans , I cannot tell . Notes for div A26864-e4660 Whether faith be the Instrument of Justification . * * I suppose the word [ Act ] is used so largely , as to include the Law it self . Of the instrumentality of the Covenant . Whether justifying faith be prerequisite to Baptism . Rivet in Animad . in Annotat. Grotli in Cassandr . in art . 4. p. 13. fol. Fides quae non parit obedientiae propositum , non est vera fides . Haec cum primum ingeneratur cum poenitentia conjuncta est , quae non potest esse sine obedientiae proposito . Fidei formatae & insormis apud Veteres Catholicos ne Vestigium quidem reperitur , si de fide Justificante & salvifica , &c.