Apology Against the Exceptions of Black and Kendall, Section Baxter 55 – Section Blake 58
§ 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, its 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 Ʋniverſalis, 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.