Rich. Baxters apology against the modest exceptions of Mr. T. Blake and the digression…

R. B. MR Blake's business here, is to confute the answer that I gave to that objection. A brief Reply may easily satisfy this confutation. 1. I did explain in what sense these were called Covenants, showing that that which is called the Absolute Covenant, is in some respect no part of Gods Legislative Will, and so doth not jus confer, 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 applied 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 satisfy the Objector, who so called it, intimating the impropriety of it. Also I did plainly show 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 Efficiency 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 ⟨p. 109⟩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. Blake's 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 denial, 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 contrary, hath little in it, to compel me to a change. Your Major 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.