Apology Against the Exceptions of Black and Kendall, Section Baxter 82 – Section Baxter 91
§. 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 foreign 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 its 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.