all that I could to have confuted the Arguments for it and was very willing to have found the truth on Mr. Blakes side but it was too hard for me and overcame me after some such reluctancy For besides many other Reasons which I have mentioned I find that there is no footing for a man in his way He that will not take up with the bare name of a Dogmatical Faith knows not for ought I can find what to take up with I despair of ever prevailing with Mr. Blake let him write never so much more on the subject to give us a true Definition or Description of that Faith short of Justifying which entitleth to Baptism and to prove it from Gods word or to agree with himself Commonly he calls it a Dogmatical Faith one would think now you might know the truth by this plain Name but when I tell him that if it be meerly Dogmatical then it is only in the understandings Assent and importeth no consent of the Will and that this is in the Devils and may be in those that say We will not have this man reign over us nor be our Saviour because he will not let us have our lusts And would he Baptize those that should say so Hereupon Mr. Blake will take some consent of the Will or else it cannot become a covenanting but sometime he only describes it negatively that it is not such as comes up to Justifying Faith but who knows by this what it is though he tell us what it is not sometime he makes the expression of it to contain those two parts 1. Confession of the necessity of justifying Faith 2. An engagement or promise to Believe with a Justifying Faith But when I interpret this promise to be that he will so believe de futuro he asketh me how comes de futuro in as if every promise were not de futuro Is it de praesenti Doth he promise that he doth at the present so believe why this is not to promise but to profess and is the thing that I plead for as necessary which Mr. Blake resisteth sure then it is de futuro or it is not intelligible by common capacities Well if it must be de futuro either it s at the next moment or some time at longer distance To say I consent not now but I will the next moment or tomorrow is ridiculous partly because as I have proved to him such a person is not capable of making such a promise so as should be rationally accepted in a covenant and partly because we may end the controversie by forbearing his Baptizing one moment longer or one day till he do indeed Believe and consent as he promiseth But what time soever it be as I told him upon these terms a man may say I believe the Creed and Scripture to be true but because I know that I cannot serve God and Mammon nor have Christ to justifie me and live in my sins I will not yet have God for my God or Christ for my Lord and Saviour nor the Holy Ghost for my Sanctifier because I will not yet leave my sins but hereafter I will would Mr. Blake Baptize such a man as this In answer to such a question he saith pag. 133. I think it will be nothing hard for any honest Christian to say that a man not justified may believe every fundamental Article as to Assent and that he may be convinced of the necessity of such Repentance and accordingly to make profession of it as Johns Converts were Baptized into c. And pag. 147. he saith Seeing Mr. Baxter calls upon me further to declare my self further in this thing I do believe and profess to hold that he that upon hearing the Gospel preach't and the truth of it published and opened shall professedly abjure all other opposite waies whatsoever and choose the Christian way for Salvation promising to follow the Rules of it is to be Baptized and his seed c. And are these Descrptions of his Dogmatical faith the same with the former Is not Repentance ever concomitant with Faith John's Baptism was the Baptism of Repentance for Remission of sins and if our Divines mistake not when they maintain to be the same with Christs sure Faith was to go with that Repentance and that Repentance which is for Remission of sins is not common but saving and special If therefore saving Repentance must not only be promised de futuro but professed de praesenti then doubtless so must that Faith which is inseparable 2. And would Mr. Blake have us so Censorious as to say that those men that Abjure all other waies whatsoever and choose the Christian way for Salvation promising to follow the Rules of it if they do this sincerely are not yet justified or have not justifying faith and that if they do it not sincerely that is not yet justifying faith which they profess For my part I am past doubt of it If this be Mr. Blakes Dogmatical Faith he and I are not much at distance about the Qualification of the Baptized but about the nature of justifying Faith For that 's justifying in my judgement which is but Dogmatical in his Christ is the way to Salvation the Sanctifying work of the Spirit and the holy Love and Obedience of the Saints in this way in subserviency to Christ all these are the Gospel way to Salvation the false belief of Erroneous men and the many by-paths of the unregenerate are the contrary which Satan perswades them to and makes them believe may serve the turn That man that Abjureth all other waies than that are opposite to the Christian way and doth choose the Christian way for Salvation is certainly a true Penitent and believeth to justification or else I can have no hopes of being saved Election is that term by which Amesius will needs express the proper formal act of justifying Faith Not one of all these acts that Mr. Blake mentions either 1. To Abjure all other opposite waies whatsoever 2. To choose the Christian way of Salvation 3. To promise to follow the Rules thereof I say not one of these can be uprightly and unfeignedly done by the unregenerate by any that hath not true Repentance and justifying saith Much less altogether Judge then whether the profession of this be not the profession of saving faith and whether Mr. Blake know where to fix himself and how to describe his Dogmatical faith and whether he do not yield the cause that I am maintaining And whereas he takes it for an egregious piece of affected nonsence to say that Justifying faith is a promise and still saith that Justifying faith with him is the thing promised or the thing whereto we do restipulate pag. 171. I say that he can never prove that the Church of Christ did know such a Baptismal covenant wherein the first justifying faith was the thing promised though the continuance may And should I so Baptize any person at age or an Infant in
confessed their sins 1. He saith some will have it to imply no verbal Confession but virtual c. which gloss carrieth a strong Probability c. Answ. 1. Such presumptuous glossing contradicting the Text upon such inconsiderable reasons as is the multitude of the baptized deserves no answer 2. It is so much the stronger against him if Baptism be in the very reception a virtual Confession then no man can be Baptized without it 2. He addeth I require more an Engagement to leave sin which their taking on them the name of Christ doth Imply Answ. If the Engagement be only for some distance of time it is such as God accepteth not nor must we If it be an Engagement to forsake sin from that present time forward it is withall a plain Profession of present true Repentance or conversion and consent to leave it yea renunciation of it resolution to take it up no more More to this purpose followeth which I think contains nothing that requireth any more than what is said already to disable it Argum. 2. My first Argument was from the Necessity of a Profession of true Repentance the second shall be from the Equipollent terms or Description to the thing Described Thus. We must baptize no man that first professeth not to believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost To believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost is saving Faith if sincerely done therefore we must Baptize no man that first professeth not saving faith The Major is proved from Mat. 28.19 Where this is made the form of the words in baptism or at least the End and that which we must insist on Calvin on the words yields the Anabaptists that faith is put justly before baptism Nam alioqui Mendax esset figuraque remissionem peccatorum Spiritûs donum offeret incredulis qui nondum essent Christi membra And that non abs re patris filii spiritûs expressa hic fit mentio quia aliter baptismi vis apprehendi non potest quà m si à gratuita Patris misericordia initium fiat qui nos per filium sibi reconciliat deinde in medium prodeat Christus ipse cum mortis suae sacrificio Et tandem accedat etiaÌ„ spiritus sanctus per quem nos abluit regenerat Denique suoruÌ„ omnium bonorum consortes faciat It appeareth by comparing Mat. 28.19 with Rom. 6 3. and 1 Cor. 1.13 14 15 10.2 that to be baptized into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is not only to be baptized by their Authority but also to be thus Initiated into the Relation which the Church standeth in to them and to be consecrated to the Father Son and Holy Ghost as Musculus Diodate the Assembly of Divines Annotations and the generality of Expositors do express See Dr. Hammond Pract. Catech. l. 6. § 2. And especially on Mat. 28.19 Grotius at large and that it comprehendeth or presupposeth a Profession of believing in the Father Son Holy Ghost For no man can devote himself solemnly by our Ministry to the holy Trinity that doth not first Profess to believe in them Therefore the Church ever taught the Câ—techuâ—â—eni the Creed first in which they profess to believe in God the Father Son Holy Ghost And before they actually baptized them they asked them whether they believed in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost To which they must answer affirmatively or not be baptized And for the Minor that this believing in the Father Son and Holy Ghost is saving faith if sincerity done as it is professed is proved 1. In that to believe in God in Christ in the Holy Ghost signifyeth not only the act of the understanding barely assenting but also the consent and Assiance of the Will 2. True saving faith is so expressed in Scripture and the promise of eternal life is added to it Joh. 14.1 Ye believe in God believe also in me Joh. 1.12 To as many as received him he gave power to become the sons of God even to them that believe in his name where believing in his name is made equivalent with Receiving him and hath Adoption immediately annexed to it And all that are baptized must first Profess to believe in his name and so receive him and not only promise to do it hereafter Joh. 3.14 15 16. Whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have eternaâ— life But all that are Baptized must Profess to believe in him Joh. 3.36 He that believeth on the son hath everlasting life and he that believeth not the son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him He that will distinguish now and say that it is not this believing on the Son here mentioned which must be Professed by all that will be baptized but another believing on him which leaveth him among those that shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him must prove and explain his distinction better then those that have undertaken it have done Joh. 5.24 Verily verily I say unto you he that heareth my words and believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation but is passed from death to life If any words of Christ can put us out of doubt that believing in the Father and Son is saving faith these asseverations and plain expressions may do it especially being a thing so oft rehearsed So Joh 6.35 He that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth on me shall never thirst Verse 40. And this is the will of him that sent me that every one that seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life and I will raise him up at the last day Ver. 17. Verily verily I say unto you He that believeth on me hath everlasting life So John 7.38 and 11.25 26. and 12.44 46 and 14.12 Acts 10.43 To him give all the Prophets witness that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins Rom. 3.20 That he might be just and the Justifier of him that believeth on Jesus Rom. 45. To him that workâ—th not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness Rom. 9 33. Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed So 10 11. 1 Pet. 2.6 1 Joh. 5.10 Tit. 3.8 with many the like From all which it is evident that Believing on or in God the Father Son and holy Ghost is saving faith having more frequent and as express promises of life as anything whatsoever And it is believing in God the Father Son and holy Ghost that we must profess in baptism To this I suppose it will be answered for I know not what else can that there are two sorts of believing in or on God the Father Son and holy Ghost and the Texts mentioned speak of one sort which is saving and that which we must necessarily profess in Baptism is another sort that is a faith not joyned with Charity or
for our consent 3. It is this same Covenant that is offered to us and not another that we are called to consent to or enter in And we cannot be truly said to enter into the covenant of God if we make a new one of our own and lay by his for that 's none of the Covenant of God he never offered it nor will he ever enter it 4. It is confessed by all that there is an internal covenanting with God by the heart and an External covenanting or engaging our selves by words or other outward signs and that this last is the Profession of the former 5. And it is confessed by all the world that internal Covenanting is an Act of the Will and never of the understanding only or chiefly 6. And this Act of the Will is commonly by the custom of Nations called consent so that consenting to Gods offered Covenant is the very formal Act or our Internal covenanting with him and professing this consent is the Signal or External Covenanting with him 7. We are I hope agreed what the Covenant of Grace is as offered on Gods part or else its great pity viz. that on the Title of Creation first and Redemption after we being absolutely his own it is offered to us that God will be our God our chief Good and Reconciled Father in Christ that Christ will be our Saviour by Propitiation Teaching and Ruling us even from the guilt and filth or power of sin that the Holy Ghost will be our indwelling Sanctifier if we heartily or sincerely accept the Gift and Offer That God will consent to be our God Christ to be our Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost to be our indwelling Sanctifier if we will but consent This is no doubt the Gift or Covenant as offered These things being premised I come to prove not only the inseparability which is enough to my purpose but even the Identity of Heart-covenanting and saving faith and of signal external covenanting and the Profession of saving faith To enter the Covenant of God unfeignedly in heart is to accept God for my God Jesus Christ for my Saviour and the Holy Ghost for my Sanctifier upon the Gospel offer To believe savingly is to accept of God for my God Jesus Christ for my Saviour and the Holy Ghost for my sanctifier upon the Gospel offer therefore to enter the Covenant of God heartily and to believe savingly are the same Moreover to Covenant with God Externally is to profess our Consent that God be our God Christ our Saviour and the Holy Ghost our Sanctifier on the Gospel offer To profess saving faith is to profess the same consent therefore external entering into the Covenant and profession of saving faith are the same thing That this is the only true Covenant-entrance with God is proved thus It is only this Covenant of Grace that God calleth us to consent to and offereth himself to enter with us therefore it is only this covenant of Grace whose acceptance or consent to it is our entrance into the Covenant of God There can be no covenanting in the present sense but by two parties But God doth not offer himself to us in any other Covenant but this nor offer his consent to any other And it s confessed that God is the leading Party prescribing to man and imposing on him the terms of the Covenant or Conditions which he must perform There is no possibility therefore of our entering into Gods covenant when it is none of his Covenant or when it is against his Will or without his consent And that this is the nature of saving faith is manifest For 1. It is not a meer act of the Intellect Though Assent be the Initial Act from which it hath oft its name yet it is not the whole nor the perfecting Act Our Divines most commonly consent except Camero and some few more that faith is in the Will as well as the Understanding And its first Act in the Will must needs be velle Christum oblatum or a consent to the Gospel-offer of God Christ and the Holy Ghost or an Acceptance of the Redeeming Trinity in the Relation as they are offered to to be ours in the Gospel After which followeth Affiance as Assent precedes it Our Assembly of Divines in their Catechisms say That Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving Grace whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation as he is offered to us in the Gospel Or as elswhere to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the Gospel And the Wills receiving is by Accepting or Consenting Dr. Preston hath at large shewed in many of his writings as I have elswhere shewed that Faith and Heart-covenanting with Christ is all one The Scripture calleth Saving faith A receiving Christ Jesus the Lord John 1.12 Col. 2.5 6 This therefore with almost all Protestant Writers is past controversie But if any will yet be stiff in it that Faith is only in the Intellect upon that common poor reason that one Grace cannot be in two faculties it may suffice to them that I prove the Inseparability of saving faith and sincere Heart-covenanting and so of the profession of each though I had not proved the Identity And these same men do most earnestly plead for the Inseparability themselves maintaining at large that Assent which only they call Faith if true is Inseparable from true consent which is the Heart-covenanting Of which you may see Dr. Downame in his Treatise of Justification and in his Appendix against Mr. Pemble at large But here we are quite off with the Papists for they stifly maintain that Faith is only the Understandings Assent only the Schoolmen and others of them confess that it is a willing Assent but it is one thing to will the Assent and another thing to will or Accept the Good that is contained in the promise which we Assent to This last is the thing in Question And they tell us that this is not Faith but Love To which Maccovius and Chamier answer them that Faith and Love to Christ are all one though Faith and Love to a distinct object be not so 2. Hereupon we proceed to a further difference which is that the Papists say that Faith may be separated from Love that Faith without Love doth not Justifie but only that Faith which is informed by Love How far this supposed great disagreement is meerly Verball or Reall I leave to the judicious Reader to judge when he hath considered that what we call Faith simply they call Fides formata Charitate That the Act of Faith which is in the Will the Papists call by the name of Love and not of Faith yet both agree de re ipsa that this is the thing which is necessary to Justification and we confess as well as they that meer Assent of some sort is separable from Love But then the mischief is that the Papists by false wording or naming these Graces are carried to the misinterpreting of
many Scriptures if not to many erroneous Doctrines also And when they read of Faith simply they commonly take it for meer Assent And so they are led into error in the present controversie For when they find that he that Believeth must be Baptized they conclude presently with Bellarmine that sides non charitas facit Christianum he that assenteth is a Believer therefore may be baptized But our Divines have so frequently and so voluminously confuted this conceit and proved against them that faith is in the Will as well as the understanding and that to Believe in signifieth to Accept or rest upon or have Affiance in and that Faith and Love are inseparable yea true and through Assent that I shall not needlesly stand to do again a work so oft and fully done And themselves confess that when Faith is mentioned as Justifying it includeth the act of the Will which they call Charity And sure we have oft proved against them that this is the faith that is meant in Gods Covenant and in our Baptismal Profession and Covenant with him and in the Creed In a word that Faith which is meant by God in the Covenant offered must be meant by us in our profession of Accepting this offer But it is a true saving Faith which hath a promise of Remission which is meant by God in the Covenant offered therefore this must be meant by us c. The Major is clear because else we do but Equivocate with God and we do not Accept the same thing that he offereth The Minor is clear in that the Covenant of Grace is but one and that one Covenant offereth Christ and Life to all that will accept him so that the Acceptance puts us into a participation of Christ and Life The Covenant offereth pardon of sin to all that Believe or Receive Christ therefore it is a saving faith that it means because it annexeth saving special Benefits To these I add another Argument which is this The hearty Acceptance of the Gift is the first and principal part of our Heart-covenanting with God The hearty Acceptance of that same Gift is saving faith therefore the first and principal part of our Heart-covenanting with God is the same thing as saving Faith The like I say of the Professions of each Or thus Our Heart-covenanting is the principal condition of the Promise or Gods part of the Covenant Our saving Faith is the principal condition of the Promise Therefore our Heart-covenanting and our saving faith are the same The Major I prove by the Medium of the fore-going Argument Our hearty Acceptance of the Gift is the Principal condition of the Promise But this hearty Acceptance of the Gift is the first and principal part of our Heart-covenanting therefore our Heart-covenanting is the principal condition of the Promise or the first and chief part of that covenating at least The Major is proved 1. In that it is a free Gift And our Divines against the Doctrine of Justification by Works or Merit have fully proved that it s so free that Acceptance is the condition of our Interest 2. And the free Offers of the Gospel fully confirm it Isa. 55 1 2.3 Rev. 22.17 c. The main point that is necessary for me to insist on is the proof of the Minor which yet is so plain from what is said and the very nature of the Gospel offer that one would think it should need no more to be said to it But that I perceive some few do misapprehend the nature of our covenanting with God as if it were only an Agreement or Covenant to do somewhat for the future that God may do somewhat for us for the future And this gross mistake gross indeed in the very point of the Gospel promise which is our only tenure of our Title to Life doth animate abundance of dark confused quarrelsom contradictions and oppositions which I have had on this point It is a matter of very sad consideration that any Preacher of the Gospel had need to be perswaded that the first and great part of the Covenant of Grace offered by God and accepted by us doth consist in present Giving and Receiving not only in mutual Promises for hereafter The Gospel is a most free Deed of Gift some of its benefits it actually giveth on condition of meer Acceptance to be presently possest and some of them on condition too but in a waiting obediential way to be hereafter possest In respect to the presently given benefiâ—s the Gospel is a Deed of Gift presently entitling us to them and our present acceptance is the condition But in regard of the future Benefits the Gospel is also a Deed of Gift but giveth not present Title or at least not so full and therefore requireth future conditions as it gives future Benefits At the present in the New Covenant God giveth himself to be our God Christ to be our Saviour Head and Husband the Holy Ghost to be our Sanctifier and also the present actual pardon of our sins the Justification of our Persons the Adoption of Sons the indwelling Spirit a Right to a beneficial use of the Creature and a Right to the Inheritance of Everlasting life so far that if we should die that hour we should be saved All these God offered us at the present on condition of our Accptance or consent This consent is our Heart-covenanting so that this first and great part of the Covenant consisteth but in the present Giving and taking of all these Benefits which in a word the Apostle expresseth 1 John 5.11 12 by the words Christ and eternal Life God hath given us eternal life and this life is in his Son He that hath the Son hath life and he that hath not the Son hath not life The remaining part of the Benefits are our future helps of Grace Pardons Protections final Absolution at Judgement and eternal Glory All these we have a right to at our first Justification but it is a right to be continued only on some future conditions that is on the condition of our continuance in the Faith which we begun and of our renewed faith and Repentance and sincere Gospel-Obedience which is to be performed in a receiving way Now its true that as to these future conditions we do not actually perform them in our covenating but promise them as God doth not then actually give us the very Blessings now mentioned but promise them But as to all the first expressed great Benefits as God did before our Consents but promise and offer them but in our covenanting or consent doth actually give them so we do by our covenanting in heart which is nothing but our consenting or accepting perform the conditions of Gods promise and thus our very covenanting with God is the same thing as our fulfiling the conditions of the Covenant that is of Gods conditional Deed of Gift which before gave us Christ and Life if we would accept them and now giveth them
Scripture either of Precept or example where any person in baptism or the Lords Supper doth engage or is required to engage to begin to believe with a saving faith or to believe with a faith which at the present he hath not Shew but one word of Scripture to prove this if you can if you cannot I may conclude that therefore we must not require that which we have no Scripture ground to require 2. This Engagement to believe savingly is either for a remote distant time or for the next instant â—ut no unbeliever as to that faith is called to promise in Baptism such a saving faith either at a distant time or the next instant therefore not at all 1. Not at a distant time For first that were to resolve to serve the Devil and be an unbeliever till that time 2. And no man is sure to live any longer time 2. Not at the next instant For first that instant cometh as soon as the word of Promise is out of his mouth even before Baptism and therefore by that Rule he must believe savingly before 2. We may as well stay one minute or instant to see whether he will perform his Promise as to baptize him upon that bare Promise of believing the next minute 3. It is a ridiculous unreasonable conceit that any man should say I believe not savingly yet but within a minute of an hour I will and that this should be required in baptism and the Lords Supper 3. God makes it not the condition or qualification of them that are to be admitted to Baptism or the Lords Supper that they should Promise to do that which they have no Moral Power to do I mean such as the seed or habit of Grace containeth as to the act But the unregenerate have no Moral Power to believe with a saving faith Ergo c. The Major is proved thus 1. To promise to believe savingly is to Profess that they are truly willing to believe savingly but no wicked men are truly willing so to believe therefore they are not called to promise it for that were to be called to profess an untruth and so to lye Unless as they are called to be really willing and promise both and that is but to be sincerely faithful and to promise to continue so 2. It is not found any where in Scripture that I know of that God doth call any wicked man to promise to be a godly man or true believer before he is so but only commandeth him to be so And if God never call such men to such a promise at all then is it not the condition or qualification of persons to be admitted to the Sacraments We still speak of the aged The Minor is proved from many Scriptures and is the common Doctrine of all Antipelagians at least We are dead in trespasses and sins and must we baptize and give the Lords Supper to such dead men upon a Promise that they will be alive Out of Christ we can do nothing Without faith it is impossible to please God It is God that giveth to will and to do of his good pleasure And no wicked man can tell whether God will give him the grace of saving faith therefore he cannot promise to have it But I shall speak more to this under the last Argument Argum. 16. If there can be no example given in Scripture of any one that was baptized without the Profession of a saving faith nor any Precept for so doing then must not we baptize any without it But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent What is pretended this way we shall examine anon among the Objections In the mean time let us review the Scripture examples of Baptism which might afford us so many several Arguments but that I shall put them together for brevity 1. I have already shewed that John required the Profession of true Repentance and that his Baptism was for Remission of sin 2. When Christ layeth down in the Apostolical Commission the Nature and Order of his Apostles work it is first to make Disciples and then to Baptize them into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost And as it is a making Dâ—sciples which is first expressed in Matthew so Mark expoundeth who these Disciples are as to the aged by puâ—ting Believing before Baptism and that we may know that it is Justifying faith that he meaneth he annexeth first Baptism and then the Promise of salvation Matth. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved This is not like some occasional Historical mention of Baptism but it s the very Commission of Christ to his Apostles for Preaching and Baptism and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and Order Their first task is by teaching to make Disciples which are by Mark called Believers The second work is to Baptize them whereto is annexed the Promise of their Salvation The third work is to teach them all other things which are afterward to be learnt in the School of Christ. To contemn this Order is to renounce all Rules of Order For where can we expect to find it if not here I profess my conscience is fully satisfied from this Text that it is one sort of faith even saving that must go before Baptism and the Profession whereof the Minister must expect Of which see what is before cited out of Calvin and Piscator That it was saving faith that was required of the Jews and professed by them Acts 2.38 41 42. is shewed already and is plain in the Text. Acts 8. The Samaritans believed and had great joy and were baptized into the name of Jesus Christ ver 8 12. Whereby it appeareth that it was both the understanding and will that were changed and that it was not a meer Dogmatical faith and that they had the Profession of a saving faith even Simon himself we shall shew anon when we answer their objections Acts 8.37 The condition on which the Eunuch must be baptized was if he believe with all his heart which he Professed to do and that was the Evidence that Philip did expect Paul was baptized after true conversion Act. 9.18 The Holy Ghost fell on the Gentiles Acts 10.44 before they were baptized and they magnified God And this Holy Ghost was the like gift as was given to the Apostles who believed on the Lord Iesus and it was accompanied with Repentance unto life Act. 11.17 18. Acts 16.14.15 Lydia's heart was opened before she was baptized and she was one that the Apostles judged faithful to the Lord and offered to them the evidence of her faith Acts 16.30 31 33 34. The example of the Jaylor is very full to the resolution of the question in hand He first asketh what he should do to be saved The Apostle answereth him believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and thy house so that it was a saving faith that here is mentioned He rejoyced and believed with all
his house and was baptized that same hour of the night or straight way It is here evident that he professed the same faith which Paul required or else the equivocation would make the text not intelligible And that which was required was a saving faith Acts 18 8. Crispus the chief ruler of the Synagouge believed on the Lord with all his house and many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized Here we have two proofs that it is saving faith that is mentioned One in that it is called a believing on the Lord which expresseth saving faith Another in that it is the faith which related to the doctrine preached to them as is expressed in the word Hearing that which they heard they believed but they heard the promise as well as the History of the Gospel and they heard of the Goodness as well as the Truth and they heard Christ offered to them as their only Saviour for Paul never preached Christ but in this manner and to these ends even as might tend to their Justification and Salvation and it was a saving faith that he still exhorted men to Those in Acts 19.5 were baptized as Believers in Jesus Christ which is saving faith whether it were by John's Baptism or by Paul or others I now enquire not And what all the Churches were supposed to be to whom the Apostles wrote I have shewed before In a word I know of no one word in Scripture that giveth us the least intimation that ever man was baptized without the Profession of a saving faith or that giveth the least encouragement to baptize any upon another faith But before we proceed Mr. Blake's exceptions against some of these â—rguments from the forecited texts must come under consideration how little soever they deserve it pag. 166. To what I said from Mat. 28.29 I am very sory to hear the constitution of visible Churches to suffer the brand of making of counterfeit and half Christians Answ. For all that I will not be moved with pity to err because you are sorry to hear the truth 1. Church constitutions make not Christians of one sort or other but contain them when made 2. And my arguing was to prove that every faithful Pastor must intend the making of sincere Christians and not only counterfeit or half-Christians This is a truth that so good a man should not have been sorry to hear 3. If you mean that visible Churches contain not counterfeit and half-Christians you might have been sorry long before this to hear both Protestants and Papists say the contrary You add Its well known whose language it is that all charging duty on unregenerate persons is only to bring them to hypocrisie Answ. And if the end of that duty were no higher than to bring men to be counterfeit Christians they had not said amiss When we hear that charge it is for perswading men to hear pray c. for sincere faith But if I perswade men to become Christians and mean only the Professors of faith without the thing professed or the believing with another sort of faith then I might well be charged with perswading some to hypocrisie and the other to be half-Christians 2. You have not yet proved that Baptizing the Professors of a lower faith is the appointed means to bring them to saving faith You say In order to make men sincere Disciples they must be made visible professing Disciples Answ. If there be not a palpable equivocation you must mean that it is the same Discipleship which some have sincerely and others but visibly by profession and then it must be the same faith And then you say to this effect that in order to make men sincere they must profess seem to be so before they are so that is a lie is the appointed means to make the thing spoken become true But if according to the current of your doctrine you mean in the later branch of your distinction those only that profess another sort of faith and so equivocate in the word Disciples then I answ 1. Your Disciples are no Disciples nor so called once in Scripture 2. Nor is that any thing to baptism till you have proved that baptism also annexed to your Discipleship is a means appointed to bring them to a higher saving faith You tell us that men may be half Christians in order to be whole Christians Answ. But not baptized to that end nor must the Preacher intend the making of any half-Christians and no more What you mention out of Ames of taking stones out of the quarry to polish c. is nothing to the purpose Baptizing them is not polishing them that is preparing them for conversion according to the Institution but it s the placing polished stones in the building To polish them for the building is to make them true Disciples and not Professors of another kind of faith Pâ—g 168. When I say that to be Christs Disciples is to be one that unfeignedly takes him for his Master c. You answer that This is true as to the inheritance of Heaven but not as to the ininheritance of Ordinances The Jew outwardly was not thus qualified Repl. 1. Our question is what is a Disciple and what 's your answer to that unless you distinguish of two sorts and mean that another sort there are that inherite Ordinances 2. And then I say further some Ordinances are without the Church and those may have them that are no Disciples and fâ—r those proper to the Church none have right to them but who at least profess the foresaid Discipleship I wonder what your three sorts of Disciples will prove that do not profess to take Christ for their Master Next where Mr. Blake would have proved the Text not to be meant of sound Believers because they are such Disciples as a whole Nation is capable to be I answered that whole Nations are capable of saving faith and proved it to which he mentioneth the capacity of stones to be made Children As if men had no more then stones And as if God could not make all in a Nation believers by the same means us he makes some such He turns to the question what a Nation is capable of to what may be expected â—nd argueth as if they were capable of no more than we may eventually expect and saith this that is a doctrine so clear that proof needs not Where there never shal be any futurity we may well and safely speak of an incapacity Ans. As if omne possibâ—le esset futurum and men should have every thing good or bad which they are capable of A sad world when among learned Divines such sayings are Truths that need no proofs as if the contradictories of our Principles were become Principles It s added Capacity is vain when it is known coâ—fest that existence shall never follow Answ. Hath such an assertion bin usually heard among the worshippers of the Creator the admirers of his works If one of
not renounce the world flesh and the Dâ—vil oâ— that declareth certainly that he will not renounce thâ—m at that time But such are all notorious ungodly men Therefore the Church hath ever required this in Baptism Arg. 7. We may not baptize those whom we notoriously know to be at present uncapable of receiving remission of sins for that is the use of the Ordinance according to Gods institution But such are all the notoriously ungodly Therefore I need not here I suppose with those I deal with answâ—r the Antinomian's Objection from Rom. 4. of justifying the ungodly I have said enough to that against Lud. Colvinus and others Arg. 8. Men that be notoriously unfit for Marriage with Christ to be solemnized are unfit by us to be baptized or any for them But such are all the notoriously ungodly Ergo c. Arg. 9. We may not baptize those that we know do notoriously dissemble in making the Baptismal Covenant But such are all notoriously ungodly Ergo c. Arg. 10. We may not give him the Seal of the righteousness of Faith who notoriously declareth that he hath not that Righteousness But such are all notoriously ungodly Ergo c. Arg. 11. From Matth. 28.19 20. Before we baptize men or any for their sakes we must see in probability that they are made Disciple But so are not the notoriously ungodly Ergo c. Arg. 12. Those that we must Baptize or any for their sakes must seem to believe with all their hearts Acts 8.37 And to receive the word gladly Acts 2.38.39 41. And to believe with a saving faith Mark 16.15 16. Acts 16.31 â—2 33. But so do not any that are notoriously ungodly Ergo. These Texts and many such like are our Directory whom to Baptize Arg. 13. From 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your children unclean If one of the immediate Parents be not a Believer their children are unclean and consequently not to be baptized But notorious ungodly ones are not Believers Ergo As they must be Believers that they may have Right and be Holy so must they seem Believers that they may seem to have Right and so be baptized by us warrantably But such seem not to have Faith who are notorioâ—sly Ungodly It is Objected that this Text determineth of one way of Covenant-Right to Infants but doth not thereby deny all other Answ. 1. It is peremptory in the Negative Else were your children unclean as well as in the Affirmative but now are they Holy 2. It therefore excludeth expresly all other wayes of interest in the Covenant by Birth-Priviledge Else how could that Negative be true But I confess it doth not exclude all means else of an after acquisition or reception of Covenant-Right For he that is born unclean may become by purchase or contract the child of a Believer or at age may believe himself And then he ceaseth to be unclean 3. At least it seems yielded by thâ—m that if both Parents be unbelievers the child can have no Right Aâ— theirs or on theâ—r account It s Objected that this was true of the Corinthians whose Ancestors â—ere Infidels and themsâ—lves the first Converts their children were unclean if one of them were not a believer but it holdeth not of them that had pious Ancestors Answ. 1. This yieldeth the point which is now in question that is that On their Parents account such children have no right 2. It contradicteth the Apostle's express Affirmation who saith that they are unclean which can extend to no less than the denyal of Holiness by Bâ—rth-Priviledge 3. Noah was the Progenitor remote of those Corinthians and he was not unclean Yet that makes not them Holy Else no man shoul'd be unholy Arg. 14. Rom. 11. The Israelites and their children with them are broken off because of Unbelief Therefore Notorious Unbelievers and their children are to be judged as no Church-members nor to be baptized And that all Notorious Ungodly ones are Notorious Unbelievers I have proved and may yet refute the ordinary Objections to the contrary Arg. 15. We may not lawfully baptize those children for their Parents sake whose Parents are ipso jure Excommunicated from the society of Christians as such or are justly to be pronounced No Members of the Universal Church Visible or Invisible But all Notoriously Ungodly are in one of these ranks Ergo. To explain my meaning in this Argument Observe 1. that I take not the common doctrine for true that a particular Political or Organized Church or incorporated Society of Christians is a meer Homogeneal part of the universal Visible Church All the Universal Church doth not consist of such Societies no more than all this Common-wealth doth consist of Corporations For a particular Church is as a particular Body-Corporate and all the Members of the Universal are not so Though all ought to be so that can attain it yet all cannot attain it and all do not what they ought Even in an Army a Souldier may be lifted by a General Officer into the Army in general long before he is placed in any Regiment or Troop yea there are some that are Messengers and for other employments that are not to be of any Regiment So sometime a man is baptized as the Eunuch before he be entred into any particular Church perhaps long And some were of Churches which are dissolved and stay long before they can joyn themselves to others And some live as Merchants in a moveable travelling condition And some are bound for the good of the Common-wealth to be Embassadors or Agents or Factors c. resident among Infidels where is no Church And some may be called to preach up and down among Infidels for their conversion as the Apostles did and fix themselves to no particular Church And some may be too ignorant or neglective of their duty in incorporating with any And some upon infirmity and scrupulosity hold off So that its apparent that all the Visible Church is not thus Incorporated into particular Churches 2. I do firmly believe that Baptism as Baptism doth list enter or admit us only into the Universal Church directly and not into any particular Church but yet consequentially it oft doth both And as the Parent is so is it supposed that the Infant is If the Parent live an itinerant life and bring his child to Baptism that child is entered into the Universal Church only except he leave the child resident in any particular Church and desire it may be a member of it But if the Parent be a member of a particular Church when we Baptize his child we receive it first into the universal Church and then into that particular as an imperfect member For we justly suppose it is the Parents desire which is it that determineth this Case 3. I firmly believe that the common opinion is an Error that All that are cast out of a particular Church are cast out of the universal 4. Yea or that he that is put out of one particular
seal of the righteousness of that faith which they had or professed to have being yet uncircumcised Gen. 17.11 12. Rom. 4.11 That is the Parent for himself and his child professed a true consent to the Covenant And this Consent I have before proved to be saving faith or inseparable from it And so Covenanting was then as strictly required as Circumcision Object But every male was to be cut off that was not circumcised Answ. I shall not now stand to enquire into the meaning of that cutting off But whatever it was it is certain that there is as much threatned to them that did not covenant with the Lord. Obj. But that cannot import a sincere Covenanting in saving Faith For then how great a part of the people must be cut off Answ. It plainly speaks of the profession of sincerity in Covenanting 2. Chron. 15.12 13. And they entred into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their Fathers with all their heart and with all their soul that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death whether small or great whether man or woman Obj. But saith Mr. Blake though they covenant to believe savingly yet they do not profess that they do so and it is not covenanting that proves men in a state of justification and salvation but keeping the Covenant Answ. He that covenanteth from that time forward to take the Lord for his God sincerely doth by that Covenant at present express that he consenteth to have the Lord for his God upon the Covenant terms but he that professeth such a Consent doth eo nomine profess saving faith which is nothing else but Assent and that consent producing affiance There is no act proper to saving faith if Consent be not 2. As therefore faith which is or is inseparably joyned with as others confess the hearts consent doth justifie a man before he express it in works of actual obedience so it is but the same thing which we say that heart-covenanting or consent doth justifie or prove a man justified before he do any further keep that Covenant by any positive effects of it For it is the performance of the conditions of Gods promise that first prove us justified and God promiseth Christ and Justification with him to all that believe or receive Christ or accept him as offered And this receiving or accepting is the same thing with consent or heart-covenanting So that all that we oblige our selves to for the future in our sincere covenanting with Christ are not any means of our Justification as begun but only of the continuance or not losing of it 3. Yet still we easily grant that or all covenanting without the hearts consent will save none Ob. Is it credible that all Israel must be forced to profess themselves true believers when many were not Answ. God required them first to be such and upon pain of damnation and then to profess themselves such and seal it by his Sacrament He warranteth no man to profess a falshood but that they truly consent and then profess it Though Asa and the other Rulers could search no deeper then an External Profession or Covenant and their practice in seeking God because they did not know the heart And that it was indeed no other then that which then was saving faith which was professed and so required in that Covenant doth appear in the terms of it It was to take God to be their only God and to give up themselves to be his people and the mention of their deliverance from the Egyptian bondage and the nature of Circumcision shew that it was in Deum Misericordem Redemptorem they that professed to believe with such respect to the blood of the Messiah as those darker times required The terms in Deut. 26.16 17 18. do plainly express that faith which then was proper to the saved The Lord thy God hath commanded thee to do these statutes and judgements thou shalt therefore keep and do them with all thy heart and with all thy soul Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walk in his wayes and keep his statutes and his commandments and his judgements and to hearken to his voice And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people as he hath promised thee c. Sincerely to take the Lord for our God is the sum of all Religion and the very nature of Sanctification For it is not the bare Name of God but God himself that is here meant And this can be no less in any tolerable sense then to take him by Assent and Consent for our absolute Lord and Soveraign and chief Good or End And that the Jews themselves thus understood the Covenant of Circumcision Ainsworth on Gen 17. sheweth out of their Rabbies in these words Ex lib. Zohar At what time a man is sealed with this blessed seal of this sign thenceforth he seeth the holy blessed God properly and the holy soul is united with him If he be not worthy that he keepeth not this sign what is written By the breath of God they perish Job 4.9 For that this seal of the holy blessed God was not kept but if he be worthy and keep it the Holy Ghost is not separated from him And after v. 12. ex Maimonid By three things did Israel enter into the Covenant by Circumcision and Baptism and Sacrifice c. And so in all ages when an Ethnick is willing to enter into the Covenant and gather himself under the wing of the Majesty of God and take upon him the yoke of the Law he must be circumcised and baptized and bring a Sacrifice c. When a man or woman cometh to joyn a Proselite they make diligent enquiry after such lest they come to get themselves under the Law for some riches that they should receive or for dignity that they should obtain or for fear If he be a man they enquire whether he have not set his affection on some Jewish woman or a woman her affection on some young man of Israel If no such like occasion be found in them they make known unto them the weightiness of the yoke of the Law and the toil that is in the doing of it above that which people of other Lands have to see if they will leave off If they take them upon them and withdraw not and they see them that they come of love then they receive them as it is written When she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her then she left speaking unto her Ruth 1.18 Therefore the Judges received no Proselites all the dayes of David and Solomon Not in David's dayes left they should have come of fear Nor in Solomon's lest they should have come because of the Kingdom and great prosperity which Israel then had For who so cometh from the Heathens for any thing of the vanities of this world he is no righteous Proselite Notwithstanding there were
may receive without recourse to the Law of God in Specie Without Scripture it may be known that a Precept is not the same thing with a Promise or Deed of Gift and that a Power of Administring to one that demandeth is different from a Power to demand it or any just Title that may warrant a claim 4. If this will not serve you I add Lex distinguit ergò distinguendum est 1. You confess that a Dogmatical Faith is necessary to our Title And what is that equally Coram Deo Exclesiâ If a Jew say I will go and deride Mr. Blake I will tell him to day that I believe in Christ and I will be Baptized by him and tomorrow I will scorn Christ to his face will you say that this man hath equall Right Deo judice as he hath Ecclesia judice I will not be too confident of my understanding your minde but upon consideration I think you will not 2. Matth. 22. and Luke 14. The servants had power to bring in by perswasion that person that had not on the wedding garment though they were to perswade him to come as a meet guest and so with that garment yet the performance they left to himself But yet he had no warrant for his access in that condition and he meets there with a judgement of God which was distinct from that of the Church which with a Friend how camest thou in hither c. left him speechless Nor would it have saved him to have said Lord I was taught by learned Divines that there is no Forum Dei to judge of my Right to Sacraments besides the Forum Ecclesiae and I had Right in the judgement of the Church and therefore so I have in thine And thousands will finde this Plea prove uneffectual if they shall be encouraged to use and trust to it 3. 1. Cor. 11.31 32. I think there is a judgement of the Lord mentioned against unworthy receivers that is not the same with the judgement of the Church Nor is it my opinion that it was the Churches judgement which laid some of them in sickness some in weakness and some asleep God took cognisance of mens not examining themselves and eating and drinking unworthily which was an eating and drinking damnation to themselves and of their not discerning the Lords Body and that further then the Church did 4. It hath till now been taken for granted that there is a twofold forum or judgement exprest in Mat. 16.19 and Mat. 18.18 Where binding on earth and binding in heaven are distinguished and loosing on earth and loosing in heaven The Treatisers that have wrote of the power of the Keyes and the Expositors upon this Text have not thought that these two were but one nor did offer so injuriously that I say not reproachfully to expound Christs words If you say that though they be not the same yet they agree for that shall be bound or loosed in heaven which is bound or loosed on earth I answer that is quando clavis non errat When the Church judgeth justly as the truth is For God will not judge erroneously or unjustly because man doth so Yea though the Churches error be inculpable as if they absolve or excommunicate a man upon the full testimony of false witness c. yet God will not therefore judge as they Though he will justifie their act of judging yet he will not censure the true Title of the person to communion accordingly nor binde or loose in heaven according to any mistaking sentence Many other Texts do sufficiently evidence this distinction But because Mr. Blake doth pag. 187. and often so peremptorily renounce this distinction in this controversie I shall yet add one or two Reasons to shew the necessity of it Arg. 1. If the judgment of God the judgment of the Church concerning mens Right and claim here be all one then either the Churches judgement is infallible in this matter or Gods judgement is fallible But neither is the Churches judgement infallible nor Gods judgement fallible Therefore they are not both one The force of the consequence is evident And for the Minor 1. To say Gods judgement is fallible even that which he doth himself immediately exercise of which we speak is to Blaspheme 2. To say that mans judgement here is infallible is to speak 1. That which cannot be proved 2. More than the Papists yea more than the Italian Papists say of the Popes For Bellarmine himself will confess him fallible about such personal causes as these whether such a mans cause be good or bad c. 3. If the judgement of man be in this case infallible then no man was ever wrongfully admitted by the Church and so the argument would hold à facto ad jus such a one was admitted therefore he had Right to claim and Receive But the consequent is intolerable For 1. It hindereth all hypocrites in the world that should believe it from repenting of their unjust claim and Receiving and justifieth them all Coram Deo but sure it will prove an uneffectual justification 2. The same it doth by all Ministers that ever administred the Sacraments It teacheth them to justifie themselves as infallible and to disclaim Repentance for any mistake He that dare tell all the Ministers in the world that they never gave a man a Sacrament without Right Coram Deo or all the Receivers in the world that they never received it without such Right as will warrant their claim and Receiving will shew whether the weakness even of good mens arguings may seduce Moreover if the Minister be infallible in this case then either by an ordinary ability of discerning or by extraordinary priviledge The latter is not pretended by any Protestants or Papists that I know of The former cannot be said unless it be also said 1. That all other men as wise be Infallible as well as they 2. And that therefore the case hath such evidence that no Minister can possibly be mistaken in it But this cannot reasonably be said For 1. If an Infidel or Pagan come in scorn to be Baptized and profess a Dogmatical faith when he hath it not the Minister cannot know his heart 2. And if Mr. Blake will say that the very scornful words of such a Professing Pagan are a sufficient title coram Deo yet the Minister may possibly mistake his words and think he saith I do believe when he saith I do not believe 3. Or the Minister may easily mistake the extent and nature of Mr. Blakes Dogmatical faith and think that the Infidel doth profess that Dogmatical faith when it is but some faith yet lower than it or but part of it Furthermore if Ministers be thus infallible then none of their Acts can be Nullities but the contrary is true and hath been the Judgement of the Church expressed in many Councils de rebaptizandis non legitime baptizatis quoad essentiam baptismi And this would put us hard to the
Eternity The latter is not properly in God at all For he changeth not his minde nor Remitteth any Punishing Purpose or secret Resolution or thoughts which he had before and if he did that would not dissolve the Guilt that is the obligation to Punishment without an outgoing word from God But yet after the manner of weak man this last sort of Mental Pardon may from the Effect to the Affect be ascribed Denominatively to God But then as it is but Denominatively so that Denomination must then begin when the Law of Grace or Promise doth Pardon and Absolve for then only doth the ground of that Denomination begin though nothing Real do begin in God And it is worth the noting also how angerly this man doth tell us that neither Dr. Twiss nor any that ever was taught or Catechized understandingly in the Church will deny or is ignorant of this kinde of Pardon or Justification in Law-sense which we maintain And yet that Mr. Blake will not be perswaded of any such thing to this day but disputeth confidently against that which we are so chidden by Mr. Robertson for imagining that any well Catechized will deny Again tell me what a man should do to be of every learned good mans minde or to escape their censures And as these Brethren deal in the Press so do some others privately by words and Manuscripts The last week I received a creeping Paper against my directions for Peace of Conscience written by a Minister about the midway between Mr. Blake and me Though a Neighbour I know not that I ever heard his name before but once about 16 years ago who with the spirit and pen of Mr. Robertson and his like doth furiously fall on me to conjure out of me the Devil of Pelagianism because I say to doubting souls that If Christ be not yet theirs he maybe when they will or they may have him when they will whereupon to his Councils and Fathers he goes against Free-will This is a Minister of the Gospel and yet knows not that this is a Truth that almost all the world of Christians are agreed on and that Austine purposely defendeth and if it be not true what a case is the world in And his Reproaches are cast in the face of the Scripture that saith the same Whoever will let him take the water of Life freely Rev. 22.17 And Dr. Twiss maintains it at large that velle Credere is Credere but doubtless velle Christum oblatum is a great act of saving Faith And this man might read that I add withall as Austine doth that Though whoever will have Christ as offered may have him yet no man will so have him but by the work of special Grace But is it not a sad case when the Preachers of the Gospel shall defame and reproach the very substance of the Gospel as zealously as if mens salvation lay upon it I have given you now I think reasons enough to excuse me from wording it with such inconsiderate men To which I will add one other I am conscious of so much frailty in my self that I am likely to be drawn also to injure some of them And also I am not able to speak so cautelously but some words will be very liable to misunderstanding on which they may plausibly fasten their accusations To give you one instance In the Preface to my Confession I noted a sort of empty men that will not speak to men nor give them any reasons to convince them but only secretly behind their backs will carry it abroad that such or such a man is erroneous half an Arminian a dangerous man and if they speak to us we shall hear but these general charges of Error To these I said I might expect they should be more Judicious studied impartial illuminate sincere or at lest the chief of these before I should value their bare Judgements and Censures without their Reasons professing withall that as I doubted not but there are multitudes of Labourers in Gods harvest with whom in these respects I am unworthy to be named so the Judgement of these I would value that is so far as to suspect anything which they are against and silence it at least till Evidence be very cogent So that I never mentioned the Qualifications of men that write or dispute against me but only of those that look I should be swayed by their Censures without Arguments This was my very mind of which I desire you to observe the words themselves But no where doth Dr. Owen and Mr. Blake so take me up as here mistakingly supposing that I spoke of those that should Write or Argue against me and that I require all these Qualifications in them No I will hear Scripture and Reason from a Childe but I will not be swayed by the Judgement and Censures of a Childe Yet here the one of them talks of the terrible conditions that I impose upon my Answerer and the other Mr. Blake comes on with intimations as if my words implyed that I take my self for more judicious experienced holy c. than all those from whom I manifest my dissent the Assembly and I know not how many feigning me do dissent from men even contrary to my profession These answers will seem as good to Readers that will not by collation make trial as if they were as good as any So will his citations out of the Fathers when among the several points in difference I desired one line from one Ancient to prove that his opinion was ever known to the ancient Church and for one of them the instrumental efficacy of Faith to Justification he doth perform it at large but how By a bare citation of Passages from others gathered up and that without the words and that only affirming that we are justified by Faith and not by Works So that if Mr. Blake bring testmonies of the Ancients sense that we are Justified by Faith and not by Works he will take these as testimonies that the Ancients speak for the Instrumental Efficiency of Faith in Justification And by such consequences he may make them say many things more that they never said indeed But we have shewed him a tertium another sense in which a man may be said to be justified by Faith without Works Sure I am that if I should maintain such a Justification by Faith without Works as many of those Fathers whom he quote's do assert in terms and sense even in the words before and after and in the places cited I should be more clamorously called a Papist than yet I have been at least there were more shew of reason for it Moreover the very naming of untrue Reports and Affirmations would be offensive to the guilty As pag. 664. he saith that I say Obedience is only the modification of Faith in the first act of Justification when I never spoke or thought such a thing but deny it to be existent as its distinct from Faith in that first act of
Certain Disputations Of Right to SACRAMENTS and the true nature of Visible Christianity Defending them against several sorts of Opponents especially against the second assault of that Pious Reverend and Dear Brother Mr. Thomas Blake By RICHARD BAXTER Teacher of the Church in KEDERMINSTER The Second Edition corrected and amended Mark 16.16 He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned Luke 14.33 Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath he cannot be my Disciple Acts 3.23 Every soul which will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from among the People LONDON Printed by R. W. for Nevil Simmons Book seller in Kederminster and are to be sold by him there and by Nathaniel Ekins at the Gun in Pauls Church-Yard 1658. Disput. 1. Whether Ministers may admit persons into the Church of Christ by Baptism upon the bare verbal Profession of the true Christian saving faith without staying for or requiring any further Evidences of sincerity Disput. 2. Whether Ministers must or may Baptize the Children of those that profess not saving Faith upon the profession of any other Faith that comes short of it Disput. 3. Whether the Infants of Notoriusly-ungodly baptized Parents have Right to be Baptized Disput. 4. Whether any besides Regenerate Believers have a Right to the Sacraments given them by God and may thereupon require them and receive them Disput. 5. De Nomine Whether Hypocrites and other Vnregenerate persons be called Church-members Christians Believers Saints Adopted Iustified c. Vnivocally Analogically or Equivocally Some Reasons fetcht from the rest of M â— Blake's Assaults and from Doctor Owen's and M â— Robertson's Writings against me which acquit me from returning them a more particular answer To the faithful servants of Christ the Associated Ministers of Worcestershire Reverend and dear Brethren AS I ow you an account of my Doctrine when you require it so do I also in some regards when it is accused by others which accordingly I here give you and with you to the rest of the Church of God I take my self also to have a Right to your Brotherly admonitions which I earnestly crave of you when you see me go aside And that I may begin to you in the exercise of that faithfulness which I crave from you I humbly exhort you that in the study and practice of such points as are here disputed yea and of all the Doctrine of Christ you would still most carefully watch against Self and suffer it not once to come in and plead its Interest lest it entice you to be Man-pleasers when it hath first made you Self-pleasers and so no longer the servants of Christ. You are deservedly honored for your Agreements and Undertakings but it is a faithful Performance that must prepare you for the Reward and prevent the Doom of the slothfull and unfaithful Mat. 25.23 26. But this will not be done if you consult with Flesh and Blood Self-denial and the Love of God in Christ do constitute the New-man The exercise of these must be the daily work of your Hearts and Lives and the preaching of these the summ of your Doctrine Where Love doth constrain you and Self-denial clense your way you will finde alacrity and delight in those works which to the carnal seem thorny and grievous and not to be attempted This will make you to be up and doing when others are loytering and wishing and pleasing the flesh and contenting themselves with plausible Sermons and the repute of being able pious men If these two Graces be but living in your hearts they will run through your thoughts and words and waies and give them a spirituall and heavenly tincture They will appear in your Sermons and exemplary lives and give you a special fertility in good works They will have so fruitful an influence upon all your flock that none of them shall pass into another world and take possession of their everlasting State till you have done your best for their Conversion and salvation and therefore that we may daily live in the Love of God in Self-denial and Christian unity is the summ of the praiers of Your unworthy Brother Richard Baxter Kederminster Jan. 17. 1656. The Preface IT is not long ago since it was exceeding far from my thoughts that ever I should have been so much imployed in Controversies with dear and Reverend Brethren as since that time I have been I repent of any temerity unskilfulness or other sin of my own which might occasion it and I am much grieved that it hath occasioned offense to some of the Brethren whom I contradict But yet I foresee that some light is like to arise by this collision and the Church will receive more good then hurt by it We are united in Christ and in hearty Love to one another which as my soul is certainly conscious of so I have not the least doubt of it in most of my Brethren with whom I have these Debates we are so far agreed that we do without scruple profess our selves of the same faith and Church and where the Consequences of our Differences may seem to import any great distance which we are fain to manifest in our Disputes we lay that more upon the opinion then the persons as knowing that they discern not and own not such Consequences And if any salt be mingled in our Writings which is usual in Disputes that are not lifeless or it is intended rather to season then to fret or to bite that which each one takes to be an error rather then the man that holdeth it If there be two or three toothed contenders that have more to do with persons then with doctrines that 's nothing to the rest And thus on both sides those that erre and those that have the truth do shew that Error is the thing which they detest and would disclaim it if they saw it and that Truth is it which they love and are zealous for it so far as they know it And doubtless the comparing of our several Evidences will be some help to the unprejudiced to the attainment of a clearer discovery of the Truth The greatest thing that troubleth me is to hear that there are some men yea which is the wonder some Orthodox Godly Ministers though I hope but few that fetch an Argument from our Disputes against the motions to Peace and Unity and unquestionable Duties which on other occasions are made to them and if any Arguments of mine be used to move them they presently reply If he would promote peace he should not break it by dissenting from or writing against his Brethren But what if I were as bad as you can imagine will you therefore refuse any Evidence that shall be brought you or neglect any duty that God shall call you to Will my unpeaceableness excuse yours But stay Brethren do you build the Churches Peace on such terms as these Will you have Union and Communion with none but
profess the pure Religion and make it appear at least to the judgment of man that they are Godly in Christ Iesus this is an inseparable Mark of a true Church as we may see 1 Cor. 14.33 See further Mr Vines in his Treatise of the Sacrament p. 150 151. saith That the Separatists laid the foundation viz. That only Visible Saints are fit Communicants which is true as to the Churches Admission That real Saints only are worthy Communicants which is true too as to the inward Grace or Benefit And 151. There is a great difference between Christs real Members and Guests at this Table and as I may say the Visible Churches Members or Guests If he be a visible Professor of Faith unshipwrakt of capacity to discern the Lords Body of Life without Scandal he is a Guest of the Church And p. 205. Though I should rest in serious Professsion of Faith and Repentance which is not pulled down again by a wicked Life or scandalous Sin yet when a man lieth under the charge of our censure for some scandalous sin the case is otherwise c. Read the rest And p. 324 329. The Covenant of God with us is that all that believe in Christ that died and receive him for their Lord and Saviour shall have remission of sins c. Answerable to this act of God the Believer accepts of and submits to this Covenant and the Conditions of it viz. to believe and to have God for our God and thereof makes a solemn profession in this Sacrament giving up himself to Christ as Lord and Saviour restipulating and striking hands with him to be his and so binds himself and doth as it were seal a Counterpart to God again and not only so but comes into a claim of all the riches and legacies of the Will or Covenant because he hath accepted and here declares his acceptance of the Covenant The Seal is indeed properly of that which is Gods part of the Covenant to perform and give and is no more but offered until we subscribe and set our hands to it and then its compleat and the Benefits may be claimed as the benefit of any conditional promise may be when the condition is performed And lest you should stumble at that word I must let you know that the Will accepting and submitting to the Conditions is the performance of the Conditions required NB. And pag. 249 250 c. Though as to admittance which is the Churches part to the outward Ordinance he make Profession as I do sufficient yet to the question whether the Sacrament be a Converting Ordinance he concludes that It is not an Ordinance appointed for Conversion His Arguments are 1. Because no effect can be ascribed to this Ordinance which fals not under the signification of it c. as Vasquez 2. This Sacrament by the institution of it appears to praesuppose those that reap the sweet and benefit of it to be Converts and in grace namely to have faith in Christ and to be living members and if this be presupposed by this Ordinance then it is not first wrought by it 3. The Word is the only Instrument of God to beget Faith or work Conversion c. And he answereth the Objections of the contrary minded and to them that argue that the Lords Supper is a Converting Ordinance because its possible a man may be then converted he saith they may as well make Ordination or Marriage Converting Ordinances because by the words then uttered a man may be converted He citeth the words of learned Rich. Hooker Eccles. Pol. l. 5. pag. 5â—6 The grace which we have by it doth not begin but continue grace or life no man therefore receives this Sacrament before Baptism because no dead thing is capable of nourishment that which groweth must of necessity first live And for further Authority he addeth And to this purpose all our Learned Divines have given their suffrage And the Papists though they differ from us in denying remission of sins in this Sacrament in favour to their Sacrament of Penance yet they hold it to be an Ordinance of Nutrition and so do all their Schoolmen and so doth the Church of England The strengthening and refreshing of our souls c I need not number Authors or Churches It is so plain a case that I wonder they that have stood up in defence of it as a converting Ordinance have not taken notice of it There is an Army to a man against them and the antient Christian Churches are so clear in it So far Mr Vines Hooker in him Concerning the Distinction of Forum Dei Ecclesiae and its sense see that judicious Agreement of the Associated Ministers of Cumberlanâ— and Westmerland pag. 47. where they take notice of Mr. Blakes questioning it Since these Papers were in the Press I was told by a Reverend Brother that Mr Blake professeth to hold the Necessity of the Profession of a saving Faith as well as I and by one of his special acquaintance in the Ministry who heard me express my mind that Mr Blake's was the same I durst not omit the mention of this lest it should be injurious to him And yet how far the reporters are in the right and understand his meaning I am no further able to tell you but that they are credible persons For my part I defended my own Doctrine against the charge which in two Volumes he brought against it And I supposed he would not write so much of two Volumes against a Doctrine which he judged the same with his own And I medled only with his books and not his secret thoughts Whether I have been guilty of feigning an Adversary that took himself for none I am contented to stand to the judgment of any impartial man on earth that will read our books Surely I found it over each page that a Faith short of Iustifying entitleth to Baptism and I never met with any such explication in him as that by A faith short of Iustifying he meant A Profession of Iustifying faith And sure Faith and Profession be not all one nor Iustifying and Short of justifying all one Nor do others that read his books understand him any otherwise then I do so far as I can learn sure the Ministers that were Authors of the Propositions for Reformation of Parish Congregations Printed for the Norwich Bookseller understood him as I do p. 17. where they say thus Obj. 3. But a dogmatical Faith may entitle to Baptism as Mr Blake Treat on Con. speaks though there be no profession of a justifying faith repentance Answ. We cannot think so seeing the faith required to be professed before Baptism is such a Faith as hath salvation annexed to it Mar. 16.16 It is a Faith of the whole heart Acts 8.38 Repentance is also required to Baptism as well as Faith Acts 2.38 and the Church in the usual form of Baptism enjoyned the baptized person not only to profess the doctrine of Faith but
others have no such thoughts of 2. More particularly I cannot yet see that I can be excused or disobliged from having a positive Hope taking Hope in the vulgar sense of the saving estate of that man that professeth seriously and soberly that he truly Repenteth and Believeth in Christ and hath not yet utterly forfeited the Credit of his word Charity thinketh no evil believeth all things hopeth al things 1 Cor. 13.5 7. I think the very Maxims of Nature cleared and enforced by Christ in the Gospel do teach me to believe that my brother is not a Lyar till I see convincing evidence of the contrary I confess I judge my self to owe this charitable construction and judgement of his serious Profession especially in so so great a cause to my Neighbour who hath not evidently disobliged me even as much as I owe my bread to the hungry and clothes to the naked yea or the liberty of the common Ayr or earth if it were in my power to restrain it 3. And I do not find myself at least ordinarily and easily capable of suspending my judgement of the truth or falshood of a mans Profession and being wholly neutral in it 4. Yea I perceive that it is the judgement of this Reverend Brother that we should noâ— be Neutral nor suspend our judgement about the Truth of the Profession which we require but that we should seek after that which he calleth a Moral Sincerity herein yea and sometime delay and try them further who offer a suspicious Profession 5. And I must confess that I take it for a great sin to censure my Brother positively to be a Lyar and to be a child of the Devil â—nd in a state of Damnation without clear convincing Evidence 6. And it seems to me a thing utterly Improbable if not certainly unâ—rue that God should require any man as sine qua non to his Church-entrance or admittance that he profess true Faith and Repentance to the Minister and Church as before them and yet that both Minister and people are bound to receive this Profession abstractively as to the Faith and Repentance so professed God knoweth the heart without Profâ—ssion it is therefore because of us that know not mens hearts that profession is required And must we then receive such a profession abstractively from the thing professâ—d Every word iâ— ordainâ—d to be a sign of the mind and a profession is formally a Relative Being The Matter of the Sign viz. The Word or the like a Bruit a Parrot may possiblâ— have And if the very Essence of a profession qua talis contein its Relâ—tion to the thing professed and the mind of the Professor then is it destructive to the very ends and Use of a Profesâ—ion to abstract the material Sign from the thing professed If you sâ—y that it is not Regeneration which they are supposed to profess I answer it is true Repentance and Faith in Christ which they are supposed to profess and that is Regeneration or the principal part of it in sensu passivo To what purpose should we imagine that men should be obliged by God to make so solemn a profession which none of the hearers are in the least obliged to believe to be true 7. We are certainly bound to believe a sober credible person of proved fidelity in other things when he solemnly professeth to Repent and believe else we must deny credit to that which beareth plain Evidence of Credibility therefore we must believe all others according to the proportion of their Credibility and not deny them credit without just cause 8. I never yet heard any assign any other cause why God should require an open profession than the revealing of the thing professed and the consequents thereof therefore till we hear a proof of some other Reason we have cause to adhere to this 9. All men are bound to judge that God would have no man to tell a lye therefore they are bound to judge that God would have no man to profess that he Repenteth when he doth not therefore he that is to judge my Profession to be by Gods commanding and approving Will is also to judge it to be a true Profession But the Ministers and the Church are judicio charitatis fide humana to judge that the Profession of the person is such as God doth require and accept as to the main substance before they baptize him and receive him into Communion upon the account of that Profession 10. I conceive that this Reverend Brother granteth in effect the thing which I dispute for while he affirmeth that such a Moral Sincerity may be lookt after as that All Circumstances considered by which Ingenuity is estimate among men there appears no reason why the man may not and ought not to be esteemed as to the matter to think and purpose as he speaketh For I plead for no more then this Object But this is nothing to the Principle that it proceedeth from special or common Grace Answ. A true Repentance and saving faith can come from none but a supernatural Principle of special Grace and therefore he that professeth this Repentance and Faith doth thereby profess that supernatural Principle therefore if am bound to believe that he speaks as he thinks then I am bound to believe that he is a truly penitent Believer if he know his own heart and he is liker to know it better then I. Moreover he saith that To ground a positive Act of Judgement that a man is Regenerate in foro exteriori there is requisite some seemingness of spiritual sincerity that is that he doth it from a spiritual principle motives c. To which I say that a serious Profession of Faith and Repentance is a Credible seemingness of Faith and Repentance And he that professeth true Faith and Repentance must needs profess them as from a spiritual Principle and Motives and to a spiritual End for they cannot be from any other principle or motives principally nor to any other ultimate End I am therefore forced to dissent from the main reason of this Reverend Brothers judgement herein viz. That there cannot be had a pâ—sitâ—ve pâ—obâ—ble Evidence of this ordinarily without observation of a mâ—ns way after Profession for a time c. For though câ—nfâ—ss this is fuller Evidence which he pleadeth for yet still I judge that a sober sâ—rious Profession is a credible Evidence of the thing professed till the person have quite forfeited the Credit of his word And ouâ—ward Reformation may be forced or counterfeit as well though not easily aâ— words 〈◊〉 it was a saving faith and Repentance which Peter invited the Iâ—ws to Act. 2 and Paul the Jaâ—lor Act 16. c. So doubt not but they took the following profession of these men as a credible Evâ—dence of the same saving Faith which they profest Argum. 4. That which hath Evidence of Credibiliâ—y ought to be believed But the profession of men or their bare words who have not forfeited
with water to Repentance therefore it is but an engagement of them to it for the future Answ. Our expositors have fully shewed that this signifieth no more but I baptize you upon your present Profession of Repentance to newness of life For that this Profession did go before is proved already and then the rest can be no more then the continuance of Repentance and exercise of it in newness of life which they are engaged to for the future Only if any falsly profess it at present his own confession is an engagement to it as a duty Grotiuâ— saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potest non incommode exponi hoc modo Bâ—ptizo vos super professione poenitentiae quam facitis The plain meaning it is in a word I do by baptism initiate you into the state of Repentance or of Penitents but Christ shall give the Holy-Ghost as it was poured forth And so as Pelargus speaks on Mat. 3. against Salmeron we maintain Johns baptisme to be â—ffectual being the baptism of Repentance to Remission of sin And that it was true Repentance that he required appeareth further by the fruits of it thaâ— he calleâ—h for from the Pharisees Mat. 3.6 7 8 9 Lastly I shall prove anon that God hath not appointed us to baptize any upon a promise of Repentance or faith before they profess actual faith and Repentance nor are they fit for such a covenant Argum. 2 For the proof of the necessity of a Profession of Repentance before baptism is this If Jesus Christ hath by Scripture precept and example directed us to baptize those that profess true Repentance and no other then we must baptize them and no other But the Antecedent it true therefore so is the consequent All that requireth proof is the Antecedent which I prove from an enumeration of those texts that do afford us this direction besides the forementioned 1. Jesus Christ himself did by preaching Repentance prepare men for baptism and for his kingdom as John before began to do Matth. 4.17 so Mar. 1.15 The Kingdom of God is at hand Repent ye and believe the Gospel And to that end he sent his Apostles and other preachers Mar. 6.12 Acts 17 30. Luke 24.47 Repentance and Remission is to be preached to all Nations in his name And baptism which is for the obsignation of Remission of sin according to the appointed order comes after Repentance And when it is said by John I baptize you with water to Repentance but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost Mat. 3.11 Mar. 1.8 Luk. 3.16 It implyeth that Christs baptism comprehended Johns and somewhat more in Act. 2.37 38. when the Jews were pricked in their heart which was a preparatory Repentance and said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles men and brethren what shall we do Peter saith to them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins so that we must require and expect true Evangelical Repentance to be professed before baptism for ver 41. it s added then they that gladly received his word were baptized so that he baptized none that to outward appearance did not gladly receive that word which could not be without a profession of that Repentance And he that here perswadeth them to repent and be baptized for remission doth in the next chapter ver 19. require them to repent and be converted that their sins may be blotted out shewing what kind of Repentance it is that he meaneth And as the work of General Preachers to the unbelieving world is sometime called a discipling of Nations which goeth before baptizing them Mat. 28.19 20. So is it in other places called a Preaching of Repentance and commanding all men everywhere to Repent Acts 17.30 An opening of mens eyes and turning them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God that they may receive Remission obsigned in baptism Act. 26.18 to repent and turn to God ver 20. And it was the sum of Pauls preaching to the unbaptized Repentance towards God and faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ Act. 20.21 So that it is apparent that they took the profession or appearance of both Faith and Repentance as pre-requisite to baptism And still this same repentance is it that hath the remission of sin connexed Act. 5.31 Luk. 24 47. It s repentance unto life Act. 11.18 And when the Apostles compare Johns baptism with Christs they still acknowledge Johns to be the baptism of Repentance Act. 13.24 and 19.4 and when the Apostle doth purposely recite the principles of our religion he doth it in this order Heb. 6.1 2. The foundation of repentance from dead works and Faith towards God the doctrine of Baptism c. Argum. 3. They that before they are baptized must renounce the world the flesh and the devil must profess true Evangelical Repentance I mean still such as hath a promise of pardon and salvation but all that are baptized must by themselves or others renounce the world flesh and devil of which we shall have occasion to say more anon Argum. 4. They that profess to be buried with Christ in baptism and to rise again do profess true Repentance but all that are baptized must profess to be buried with him and rise again therefore c. The Major is proved in that to be buried and risen with Christ signifieth A being dead to sin and alive to God and newness of life and it is not only as is feigned by the Opposers an engagment to thâ—s for the future but a profession of it also at the present This with the rest we thus prove Col. 2.11 12.13 In whom ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ buried with him in baptism wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead and you being dead in your sins the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him having forgiven you all trespasses where note 1. that this is spoken to al the Church of the Colossians therefore they are presumed to be what they profess and appear to be 2. that the putting of the body under the water did signifie our burial with Christ and the death or putting off of our sins And although we now use a less quantity of water yet it is to signifie the same thing or else we should destroy the being of the Sacrament so also our rising out of the water signifieth our rising and being quickened together with him 3. Note also that it is not only an engagement to this hereafter but a thing presently done They were in baptism buried with Christ and put off the body of sin and were quickened with him and this doth also suppose their own present Profession to put off the body of sin and their consent to be baptized on
credere in Dominum nostrum credimus Filium Dei mihi quoque esse Dominum me quoque esse ejus subditum h. e. me quoque ejus sanguine esse redemptum servari perpetuò ac proinde me obligatum ei esse ad gratitudinem Dominium ejus mihi esse salutare me servari ab eo tanquam possessionem charissimam Pag. 229. Quid est credere in Christum crucifixum est credere Christum pro me factum esse maledictioni obnoxium ut me ab ea liberaret So Pag. 240. to the Question Quid est credere in Christum mortuum◠he gives more largely the like Answer And Pag 268. he gives the like answer to the Question Quid est credere in Jesum Cristum qui ascendit in coelum I am loth to weary my self others with citing Testimonies in a known case It s well known that this or to this purpose is the common Exposition of the Protestants of the Creed and Baptismal Profession and that they maintain it against the Papists to be true saving faith that is meant in the words I believe in God the Father in Jesus Christ in the holy Ghost I doubt not to cite forty forty more to prove this when any shall shew me that it will be worth the labor Yet I must say that I approve not fully of some of their descriptions of justifying or saving faith which they hereupon give in but yet they truly maintain that it meaneth saving faith I believe and if they had but put the Wills Consent to the severall Articles and Relations and works of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and our Affiance instead of a perswasion that they are ours c. I should have yielded to their descriptions I conclude then that believing in or on God the Father Son and Holy Ghost is an Act of the Will as well as of the Understanding and is saving faith And therefore all that profess this profess saving faith But all that will be baptized must profess this therefore 3. It is agreed by all Divines that I know Protestants and Papists that to believe in the Trinity is not only to believe in Gods Essence or the three Persons but also the Relations and great operations of each person for us As to believe in God the Father is to believe in him as our Creator and Soveraign Lord and chief Good To believe in Jesus Christ Is to believe in him as Redeemer and Saviour To believe in the Holy Ghost is to believe in him as a Sanctifier and as the great Witness and Agent of Christ. Now it is most certain that to Profess Assent and consent that God be my God Christ my Saviour the Holy Ghost my Sanctifier is to profess Saving Faith And bare Assent is not meant in the words believing in or on God as is proved by our Divines at large And if present consent be exprest saving Faith is exprest for no wicked man can truly consent that God shall be his God and chief good and Christ his Saviour to save him from sin it self as well as from punishment and the Holy Ghost his Sanctifier I may truly say according to that of Peter Martyr before cited that never any but a true believer that had Justifying Faith did truly say I believe in God but speak falsly in so saying To take God for his God is a thing that no man can truly do but those that are called effectually by his Saving Grace Argum. 3. The foregoing Argument was taken from the prerequisite Profession the next shall be taken from the very work it self viz. the Presenting and offering our selves to be baptized and willingly receiving baptism Thus If it be the very Nature or appointed Vse of the external part of Baptism it self yea essential to it to signifie and profes◠among other things the saving faith and Repentance of the Baptized being at age then true Baptism cannot go without such a Profession But the former is true Ergo so is the later The Antecedent which only requireth proof I prove thus 1. It is of the Instituted Nature of Baptism to be in general a Professing sign as well as an Engaging sign de futuro this I promise as granted by all Christians that I know of that have written of Baptism And then let us consider of the several parts of the sign or external Ordinance with the signification of each That it is essential to it to be significant and Obligatory on our part as well as on Gods part is commonly confessed And 1. The Minister doth baptize him into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and the party doth by himself or Parent consent thereto 1. Voluntarily offering himself to be so baptized and then 2. Voluntarily Receiving that Baptism And his offer of himself hereto goeth before the Ministers baptizing him and his Reception of that Baptism is Essential to it so that Baptism essentially containeth on his part a Signal Profession of consent to that which is meant in the form used by the Minister I baptize thee into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost And that is that God the Father Son and Holy Ghost be mine and I be theirs in the Relations in which they are offered in the Gospel to Mankind For all confess that it is a Covenant that is here Sealed and so a mutual consent which the Signs are Instituted by Christ to signifie Christ offereth himself to be Related to me as my Jesus Christ and by offering my self to Baptism and by voluntarily receiving it I do actually profess my Acceptance of his Offer that is of himself so offered God the Father offereth himself to be my God reconciled in Christ and so my chief good and by voluntary receiving Baptism I do signally profess my Acceptance of him so offered The Holy Ghost is offered to be my Sanctifier and Guide and by voluntary Reception of baptism into his Name I do signally profess my Acceptance of him so offered Of all which I shall say more anon And if this be not the Faith which is Justifying and saving then I know not what is yea I may boldly say then there is none such so that it it a most clear case that baptism as baptism according to it s Instituted Nature and use doth contain the Persons actual signal Profession of present Assent to the truth of the Gospel and Acceptance of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as therein offered And it containeth as our Divines commonly maintain an actual signal Profession that we there presently consecrate or Devote or Dedicate our selves to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost in the foresaid Relations 2. Another part of Baptism is the Ministers washing the Person and the Person first offering himself to be washed and after actually receiving it doth thereby signally profess his consent Now this washing doth essentially signifie our washing from our former filth of sin together with the guilt our putting off the old
sed justificatis h. e. non infidelibus sed conversis Non igitur nisi conversione fide sumi debent secus sigilla justitiae esse cessant Quid enim non hathentibus fidem justitiam obsignarem Yet following Calvin he next sheweth that sometime Righteousness doth follow after and not precede instancing in Isaac which none denieth For Infants are baptized on the account of their Parents faith and not their own and the adult oft profess the faith which they have not Note also here besides Paraeus his express decision of the main controversie how he takes the converted justified and believers for the same and the unconverted unjustified and Infidels for the same Ragerus a little quarrels with Paraeus and as many Lutherans do would make Abrahams example no standing Rule that the Sacrament begets not the first Grace sed non sequitur in hoc subjecto Circumcisio non habuit virtutem operativam gratiae primitus conferendae ergò in nullo habuit imò vero aliis gratiae divinae adhuc destitutis medium esse potuit gratiae primitus conferendae so others of that way But as we distinguish between what God may do by Baptism and what he hath Instituted it to do so the very judgement of these Lutherans and many Papists who will have Sacraments to confer Grace where it is not is against the opinion that we now resist For it is not any lower effect only but saving Justification or Remission which these make to be the present effect of it Dr. Willet in loc saith Circumcision then did not confer upon him that Grace which he had not but did confirm and stablish him in the grace and faith received the Sacraments then non Instituta sunt justificandis sed justificatis are not Instituted for those which are to be justified but for them which are already justifyed Parae Peter Martyr is larger and makes these words of Paul to be the definition of a Sacrament to be a Seal of the Righteousness of faith Much out of them might be cited for the cause in hand but that I must avoid prolixity So much shall serve for that Argument Argum. 7. We must Baptize none but those that are first professed Disciples of Christ and their children who are also Disciples but none are professed Disciples of Christ that profess not saving faith in Christ therefore we may not Baptize any that profess not saving faith in Christ. The Major is proved from Matth 38.19 Go Disciple me all Nations batizing them As for those that say they are Discipled by baptizing and not before baptizing 1. They speak not the sense of that Text. 2. Nor that which is true or rational if they mean it absolutely as so spoken else why should one be baptized more then another 3. But if they mean that by heart-covenant or Gods Accepâ—ance and promise they are Disciples before but not so compleatly till the covenant be sealed and solemnized as a souldier is not so signally a souldier till he be listed nor a King till he be crowned so fully a King or a man or woman so fully married till it be solemnized in the Congregation in this sense they say the same that I am proving Men must be first Disciples by the professed consent before they are declared such by the Seals or publike sacramental solemnization And that only the professors of saving Faith and their Infants are Disciples may appear by a perusal of the Texts of Scripture that use this word and it wâ—ll not only be found that this which I maintain is the ordinary use of the Word which should make it so also with us but that no Text can be cited where any others are called the Disciples of Christ. For the Major and Minor both observe Piscators Definition of Baptism on Mat. 28.19 Baptismus est sacramentum novi Testamenti quo homines ad Ecclesiam pertinentes ex mandato Christi cultui veri Dei qui est Pater Filius Spiritus Sanctus per ministros verbi consecrantur in fide Remissionis peccatorum spe vitae aeternae confirmantur And he proveth this Description per partes 1. That its a Sacrament 2. That it belongeth to those that pertain to that Church and that they only must be baptized qui ecclesiam fuerint ingressi ac fidem evangelii professi which he proveth from Mark 16.16 he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Vult Ergò saith he ut prius constet de alicuius fide quam baptizetur Vnde Acts 8. Philippus Evangelista non prius baptizare voluit Eunuchum illum Aethiopem quam is professus esset fidem Christi And by the proof from Mar. 16.16 It is apparent that he speaks of saving faith Then he proves the last part of his description Postremo per Baptismum homines in fide spe confirmari liquet ex verbis Qui crediderit baptizatus fuerit salvabitur sic Petrus Act 2.38 resipiscentes Judaeos jubet baptizari in remissionem peâ—catorum hoc est ad confirmandam fidem remissionie peccatorum Item Act. 22.16 Ananias dicit Paulo recens converso Baptizare ablue peccata tua hoc est Baptizare ad confirmandam fidem remissionis peccatorum quod abluta sint peccata tua sanguine Christi Calvin in loc saith Baptizari jubet Christus eos qui nomen evangelio dederint seque professi fuerint Discipulos pâ—rtim ut illis Baptismus sit vitae aeternae tessera coram Deo partim apud homines externum fidei signum Scimus enim Deum nobis testari Adoptionis suae gratiam hoc signo quia nos inserit in corpus filii sui ut nos in grege suo censeat Ideo spirituale nostrum lavacrum quo nos sibi reconciliat ut nova justitia illic representatur Sed quemadmodum gratiam suam Deus hoc sigillo nobis confirmat ita quicunque se ad Baptismum offerunt vicissim quasi data syngrapha obstringunt suam fidem And after verum quia docere prius jubet Christus quam baptizare tantum credentes ad Baptismum vult recipi videtur non ritè administrari baptismus nisi fides precesserit On this pretence he shews that the Anabaptists oppose Infant-Baptism To which he answers not by receding from what is said before but by shewing that eos qui fide in ecclesiam Dei ingressi sunt videmus cum sua sobole censeri in Christi membris in salutis haereditatem simul vocari Nec vero separatur hoc modo Baptismus à fide vel doctrina quia licèt pueri infantes nondam per aetatem side percipiant Dei gratiam Deus tamen eorum parentes compellans ipsus etiam complectitur So that it is Calvins judgement that this very Text which is the most notable Copy of the Apostolical commission for the Baptizing of the discipled Nations doth appoint that saving faith be professed before men be baptized and lie makes these to be
condemn men for coming into his Church or the communion of Saints without sincere faith and repentance then it is not the appointed use of Baptism to initiate those that profess not sincere faith and repentance But the former is plain in the text Ergo c. The 13th Argument is this We must Baptize none at age that profess not themselves Christians nor any Infants but on such a Profession of the Parents or Pro-parents but they that profess only a species of faith short of Justifying faith profess not themselves Christians Ergo. c. The Major is certain because it is the use of Baptism to be our solemn Listing sign into Christs Army our Initiating sign and the solemnization of our Marriage to Christ and Professing sign that we are Christians and we do in it dedicate and deliver up our selves to him in this relation as his own So that in Baptism we do not only promise to be Christians but profess that we are so already in heart and now would be solemnly admitted among the number of Christians The Minor I prove thus 1. No man is truly a Christian that is not truly a Disciple of Christ that 's plain Acts 11.26 No man is truly a Disciple of Christ that doth not profess a saving Faith and Repentance save the children of such therefore no man that doth not so profess is truly a Christian. The Minor I prove thus No man is truly a Disciple of Christ that doth not profess to forsake all contrary Masters or Teachers and to take Christ for his chief Teacher consenting to learn of him the way to salvation But no man maketh this Profession that professeth not saving Faith and Repentance therefore no man that professeth not saving Faith and Repentance is truly a Disciple of Christ. The Major is evident in the nature of the Relation The Minor is as evident in that it is an Act of saving Faith and Repentance to forsake other Teachers and take Christ for our sole or chief Teacher in order to salvation 2. No man is truely a Christian that professeth not to take Christ for his Lord and King forsaking his Enemies but no man doth this but the Professors of a saving faith Ergo. c. 3. No man is a true Christian that professeth not to Take Christ for his Redeemer who hath made propitiation for sin by his Blood and to esteem his blood as the ransom for sinners and to trust therein But none do this but the Professors of saving Faith therefore none else are Christians The Major of all these three Arguments is further proved thus No man is professedly a Christian that professeth not to Accept of Christ as Christ or to believe in Christ as Christ But no man doth profess to take Christ as Christ that professeth not to take or accept him as a Priest Teacher and King Ergo. c. The Major is plain in it self The Minor is as plain it being essential to Christ to be the Priest Prophet and King And from these essentials related to us and accepted by us doth our own denomination of Christians arise And that a bare Assent without Acceptance doth not make any one a Christian is past doubt and shall be further spoke to anon If Baptism then be commonly called our Christening and so be our entrance solemnly into the Christian state then it is not to be given to them that are not Christians so much as by Profession but that Mr. Blake's Professor of another species of Faith is no Christian so much as by Profession I doubt not is here proved And furthermore If a Faith defective in the Assenting part about the Essentials of its Object serve not to denominate a man justly a Christian then a faith defective in the Consenting or Accepting part about the Essentials of the Object serveth not to denominate a man a Christian But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent By Defective I mean not only in the matter of perfection of degree but that wanteth the very Act it self The Antecedent is proved because else the Turks are Christians because they believe so many and great things of Christ and else a man might be a Christian that denyed Christs death or resurrection or other Essentials of Christianity The Consequence is good For Christianity is as truly and necessarily in the will as in the understanding consent is as essential an Act of covenanting as any So that I may conclude that as he is no Christian that professeth not to believe that Christ is the Priest Prophet and King so he is no Christian that professeth not to consent and accept him for his Priest Prophet and King But so doth not Mr. Blake's Professor of another faith therefore he is no Christian nor to be baptized The 14 th Argument is this If we must baptize men that profess not saving faith and repentance then is it no aggravation of such mens sins that they either plaid the hypocrites in such Professions or fell from them or walkt contrary to them For no man can walk contrary to a Profession which was never made But the Consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent Our Divines ordinarily charge wicked men with contradicting of Profession which they made with God either in Baptism or the Lords Supper And they expound many places of Scripture which the Arminians take as favouring their Cause to be meant according to the Profession of wicked men Now it seems to me that Mr. Blake by his Doctrine doth undertake to justifie all these wicked men from this aggravation of their sin and to take them off from repentance and humiliation for it For if they made no such Profession in baptism if at age or in the Lords Supper then it can be no aggravation of their sin that they walk contrary to it But I dare not undertake to secure them from the punishment Argum. 15. If all at age that are baptized and all that receive the Lords Supper must engage themselves to believe presently in the next instant yea or at any time hereafter with a saving faith then must they Profess at present a saving faith Or if we must baptize none that will not engage to believe savingly then must we baptize none that will not Profess a saving faith But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent The Antecedent is Mr. Blake's Doctrine who affirmeth that it is not necessary that they that come to baptism or the Lords Supper do Profess a present saving faith but its sufficient that they engage themselves to believe by such a faith The Consequence is proved thus 1. It is not the Beginning of saving faith which we are to engage our selves to in the Sacraments but the Continuance therefore the Beginning is presupposed in that Engagement and so we must no more baptize without a Profession of Faith in present than without an Engagement to believe hereafter The Antecedent is proved thus There is no one word in
Profession of a common faith short of saving or with that common faith it self What should a man say to such a confuter but advise him to joyn with us his weak Brethren in desiring God to pardon us for such troubling and abusing the Church 1. As to his Description of the persons to be Baptized I shall add 1. That his last Description pag. 173. containeth nothing but what may stand with First an open refusal of God and Christ. 2. And that which is commonly taken for the sin against the Holy Ghost For its past doubt that men may both be convinced of Duty and confess the Necessity of it and yet may openly profess that the world and their lusts are yet so dear to them that they will not yet have God to be their God Christ to be their Saviour on the Gospel terms And I think a man that openly refuseth Christ at the present should not be baptized at the present though he be convinced of Duty and acknowledge the necessity of it As to his other Description pag. 172. the word Engagement to it either signifieth an engagement savingly to believe from that very instant forward and this doth Necessarily import a present Profession of consent and so of present saving faith For man can so engage that doth not Profess such consent and believe And this destroyeth Mr. Blakes cause Or else it signifieth such an engagement to believe for some distant future time which is consistent with a non-profession of present consent to have Christ as offered And this is the same with that before confuted If such may be Baptized then they may say we are convinced that we must savingly believe in Christ and we do engage our selves to do it as soon as we can spare the world and forsake the Flesh and the Devil but yet we cannot and will not do this Baptize such who dare for me But for a further search of Mr. Blakes mind observe his words pag. 175. Where he answers to what I now object And first he citeth these words of mine Where you say that an acknowledgement of the Necessity of such faith with engagement to it is sufficient for a Title to the state 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 a Title to Baptism To which he replyeth How comes I pray you that future in you manifest much reading in the Law and I have heard this as a Maxim In obligationibus ubi nullus certus statuitur dies quovis die debetur There is no day overtaken but engagement is for present c. To this I rejoine 1. It is the first time that ever I heard of an engagement that was not de futuro as to the performance We are agreed that the Engagement is present but the question is whether it be to a present or future performance And it is by Covenant or Promise that Mr. Blake supposeth this engagement made And is there any which is not de futuro If the Church cannot hit the Right way of Baptizing till such elucidations as these direct them to it If you Promise to believe de praesenti either you do at that present believe or you do not If you do your Promise as to that present act which you already perform is vain as if I Promise to give you that which I have given you already or in that instant give you which were no promise but a donation or profession If you do not then believe then your promise as you call it is a falshood And to tell a lie is no such a duty as can give right to Baptism No man should say he believeth when he doth not 2. But if it may be he means not futurum remotius but futurum proximum That cannot well be neither because he saith the engagement is for present But suppose he do mean by present the futurum proximum either this importeth a profession of saving faith as well as an engagement to believe the next instant or it doth not If it do I have the thing I seek and Mr. Blakes cause is given away If not then Mr. Blake doth feign God to require such a kind of promise or engagement as our titile to baptism which I believe the common vote of reason will pronounce to be vain ridiculous if not impossible by most Vain it must needs be to make so solemn a promise of performing that in the next instant which he may actually perform save all that ado Should I cause covenants to be solemnly drawn up and witnesses called and seals affixed that I will give such a thing in the next Minute after the sealing why then may I not as well give the thing it self The Minister may stay one minute longer before he go to Church to baptize the person or he may use one word or two more in prayer and exhortation and by that time the instant would be come And Ridiculous it seems to me that any man should be admitted upon such a promise as this I will not yet leave my sin for God nor renounce the world the Flesh and the Devill for Christ or take him for my only Lord and Saviour but I engage my self to do it or I will do it as soon as the word is out of my mouth or I am not yet willing to have Christ as he is offered but I will be willing the next instant If any say so to me I will hold my hand from baptizing one minute and ask him whether now he be willing For certainly the man must break his promise between the making and the sealing of it if he be not a sound Believer already For there must go more then one instant between his promise and the Act of baptizing unless we had greater velocity of action If therefore Mr. Blake's professor shall say I promise to believe savingly the next instant then if he do not the promise is broke before it is sealed If he do I know no reason but why I may require him to profess that which he hath And is it not a kind of impossibility for any unregenerate man rationally and soberly to promise to be regenerate the next minute or instant Or for any that is destitute of saving faith to promise to believe savingly the next instant If he hath grace of such command and can believe the next moment why not now And doth not that man shew his heart unfound that can believe the next moment and will not do it at the present If it be so in his power let him not stand promising but do it But perhaps some will say that Mr. Blake meaneth not the next instant or hour or day or any determinate time but only an indeterminate time some time hereafter To which I answer 1. He expresseth himself by the terms present and quovis die debetur therefore it expresly includeth the next instant or day
but as a wooden leg to the body I am almost confident that in turning over all his bookes he can produce but few such testimonies Had he said the Catholick Church instead of the universal I believe he might have found many I think that scarce any man will deny that the universal Church is visible yet Whitaker as largely makes good that the Catholick Church is invisible If I be now sent to my Dictionary to see whether Catholick and Vniversal be both one the one a Greek word the other a Latine I confess it is so in Grammer but not in their use of it that handle the question of the Church Catholick in this manner c. Answ. Wonderful Confidenceâ— Readers take warning by Mr. Blake and me and for our sakes be not over credulous no not in the most palpable matters of fact You hear Mr. Blakes confidence and now you shall hear mine Whether I can cite many such testimonies is partly apparent already Melancthon Calvin Beza Vrsine Polanus Paraeus Piscator Zanchy Junius and I think I may add an hundred more do promiscuously use the terms Catholick and Vniversal here and commonly joyn them thus Ecclesia Catholica seu Vniversalis I profess I mention that which mine eyes have many a time punctually observed and I further profess that I never to this day to my best remembrance did read one Author nor hear of one till M. Blake here speaks it that did distinguish between the Catholick and Universal Church and though I may not say that no man ever did so as having not read all yet I will say I do not believe that ever one reputed wise and Orthodox did so and I think Mr. Blake would have proved it from some one if he could I take this therefore to be a most injurious reproach to our Divines Name us one man if you can that ever was guilty of this ridiculous distinction yea or one Papist that had the front to charge them with such a thing It is well known that our elder Reformers use to plead against the Papist that particular Churches are visible but that Ecclesia Catholica seu Vniversalis is invisible though you stick not to say that scarce any man will deny the Universal Church to be visible and that our latter Divines do speak more cautelously and say that both particular and Universal Church are quoad formam externam visible and yet both are well reconcileable in sence but your dinstinction I never met with before Pag. 156. I must profess that in perusing all Mr. Blake's book I found but one place that at the first reading might seem to an impartial man of intellectuals no stronger than mine to be a successful confutation of any one of my Arguments and that is the next where repeating my Argument that the distribution of the Church into visible and invisible is but of a subject into diverse adjuncts therefore the members that are meerly visible are indeed no part c because adjuncts are no part of the essence he answers The consequence might as fairly have bin that these members which are invisible are no parts c. I confess at the first view its a pausible answer but open it and the inside is no better than the rest For my argument takes the adjunct as conjunct with the reason of the denomination and Invisible is not a real adjunct but a negative denomination and so the argument is thus The Church is called Invisible from its internal essential form which is invisible and it s called visible but from its external accidental form which is visible therefore those Members that are meerly visible note I said Meerly are but Equivocally called members of the Church because they participate only of the accidental form and not at all of the essential Thus argue the Protestants ordinarily against Bellarmine And now where is Mr. Blakes splendid answer Invisibility is but an adjunct no more than visibility true and not so much neither But the Reason of the denomination or the thing denominated Invisible is that which Protestants call the essence and that called visible is but an Accident in their account Whereas pag. 157. you take the Church to be an integrum and that the meerly visible Members are parts yea and the visible to be the Church most properly it is notorious that you side with the Papists therein against the stream of Protestant Divines Though the thing it self I shall not now debate it being meerly a Controversie de nomine that we have in hand and I mention the words of Divines because that custom is the Master of speech and therefore have no better meanes that I know of to decide such kind of Controversies As to what you say pag. 132. I reply again that which is Real may have an equivocal name and men will know this yea and Children too when you have talkt your utmost And as to what you say page 139.140 about Equivocal Covenanting I say as I did of Faith Take Covenanting in General and so a wicked man doth properly Covenant ex parte sui with his tongue But take it for the Christian Covenanting which entitleth to baptism and denominateth us Christians which is a consent to Gods terms on which he offers Christ and life and so all the covenantings of the ungodly are but equivocally called Covenanting with God in Christ If you will not believe me at least regard Dr. Kendals long dispute on such a point in his second volume on a mistake intended against me and answer him before you persevere And as for Gods act of Covenanting with them I say He is not actually in Covenant with them or obliged to them but only still doth offer them his Covenant Reader I suppose I should do but an unnecessary and undesired work if I should thus give a particular Reply to all the rest of such passages as the forementioned in Mr. Blakes book And therefore having enough of such work already I shall forbear and here dismiss thee An account of my Reasons why I make no answer to Mr Robertson nor a more particular Reply to Mr. Blake or Dr. Owens appendix as they were given heretofore in a Letter to a Reverend Friend Though most of my Reverend Brethren that have written to me of that subject do advise me to forbear particular Replies to the words of others because the matter is so much obscured or disadvantaged through the verbal quarrels and they only desire me to handle the point of Title to Sacraments in some just Disputations and to take in that of Mr. Blakes which best deserveth a Reply whom I have obeyed in these Disputations yet because some few others are of a contrary minde I shall lay down my reasons why I do not yield to their desires which is not only because it is impossible to please men of contrary expectations and because they are the fewer but also because to me their reasons seem less weighty and the work which
respect of the Parents Faith which is his condition of Title I should think I made a new covenant and a new Baptism I mean If I Baptized any without the present profession of justifying faith and Repentance upon a promise that they will begin to Repent and Believe savingly for the time to come Indeed the first faith and Repentance unto life are so much above corrupted nature and so much the special gifts of God which he hath given no man assurance of in particular that hath them not already that we must stay till men have them before they are meet to be admitted upon promise that they will perform them It hath pleased some of the great Calumniators agents to censure me as an Arminian or half one because I run not so far on the other hand as they But it s a hard case that I am in who must needs be an Arminian and yet must be forced to dissent from so dear a friend as Mr. Blake for fear of becoming one I am confident that Mr. Blake in those points is Orthodox but so could not I be if I should entertain his opinion For if I did believe that upon the acts of common Grace men have covenant or promise-right given them by God to be Baptized I must needs believe that they had Right to Remission of sin in Christs blood seeing God appointed no Baptism but what is for the Remission of sin upon which account I have mightily displeased some Reverend friends that before over-valued me who are favourers of the Arminian way meerly because I oppose Mr. Blake in this point For my part I still take faith to be the very internal covenanting with God in Christ and not a condition of our own covenant though it be the condition of Gods covenant or promise and so that condition of Gods covenant and our own actual covenanting are one and the same thing our very first covenanting with him or consent to his terms is that faith on which he promiseth us Justification though there be a further performance required to our Salvation It is all one in my account to believe in Christ and to become a Christian and Baptism commonly called our Christening is not to engage us to begin to be Christians hereafter but it is the solemnization of the Christian contract or marriage between Christ and the Soul which is supposed to be made in heart before so that they are then actually Christians inaugurated or publickly manifested And for all that Mr. Blake hath said to the contrary he that professeth any faith only that is short of justifying faith is not a Christian in the covenant-sence but is only Equivocally or Analogically so called And whereas Mr. Blake makes it more tolerable if I had used the word Analogically then to use the word Equivocally if he had pleased to observe it I frequently put them together as here Equivocally or Analogically so that if that will satisfie him he might have been satisfied sooner Yet I take the Scotists controversie to be yet undecided whether some terms be not both Analogical and Univocal and some both Analogical and Equivocal which they handle on the Question Vtrum Ens dicatur Vnivocè de Deo Creaturâ or rather that the later clause is past doubt and therefore in our ease it is both Nor am I yet perswaded that his old Testament covenanters which are the great moving instance did profess only such a faith as was short of Justifying and they that lived in such scandal as was inconsistent Notoriously with their profession were by the law to be put to death and then they were past begetting Children to plead a right in Circumcision And whereas he is so confident that according to my opinion the Baptism of the unjustifyed is a Nullity and that they must be Baptized again and saith that its much to be feared if not certainly to be concluded that the Major part by far of the Worcestershire combination consists of unbaptized persons c. pag. 142 143. I answer 1. it is a meer naked unproved assertion that any such consequent doth follow on these grounds Nor can he ever prove it If the outward ordinance were rightly administred and the inward covenanting of the heart were not performed it is not that which was well done that must be done again but that must be done which was at first omitted even sincere internal covenanting or believing 2. But it is much more disputable according to his principles whether all that he should so Baptize must not be rebaptized For as the ancient Councils which were against Cyprians and the rest of the Carthaginians Rebaptizing did yet decree that all should be rebaptized that were Baptized by the Paulionists not that they allowed really of twice Baptizing but that the first was but Baptism Equivocally so called because they Baptized not into the Name of the Trinity so if we should upon the new Doctrine take up a new Baptism upon a meer Dogmatical faith which is not a believing in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost but only a Believing that there is a Father Son and Holy Ghost and add if you will a Promise to believe in them hereafter I should be hardly put to it to prove these persons truly Baptized and that it being a Nullity all were not to be done again and yet some Brethren of Mr. Blakes minde think that my Judgement opens the way to Rebaptizing when I doubt it will be hard to avoid it as to every person in the way that he disputeth for Not that I think that any one should be rebaptized that is Baptized by Mr. Blake or any of them For I am confident that neither he nor they did ever practice their own doctrine nor ever Baptized one person but upon the profession of justifying faith it self 3. But why do they not see that on their own grounds many of their own Baptizings would be Nullities and the persons be Rebaptized If a Dogmatical faith it self be of necessity to the Being of Baptism then what shall be done with those many hundred Children among us whose Parents discover to us that they have not that Dogmatical faith How many have we oft occasion to speak with that marvail when we tell them what Christ is and hath done and suffered for us as if they had never hard it before when yet they sit under our teaching day by day like Dr. John White 's Catechumene that being asked what Jesus Christ was answered that she did not know she was never taught so far but sure enough it is some good thing or it should never have been put into the Creed Would Mr. Blake have the Children of all these rebaptized or not If yea then he is more than I for rebaptizing if not then how will it follow any more from my judgement that the Children of the unjustifyed must be Rebaptized I cannot conceive what he can say without going to the right of remote ancestors or the
Justification So pag. 453. he affirmeth that in my opinion an infant is uncapable of any real change by the spirit With many such Assertions which I never uttered nor believed And when I told him of such a passage in his former Book about making Sincerity the Rule rather then he will acknowledge the visible mistake he again replyeth as if I wronged him to charge it on him And why so Because he named me not when yet it is as plainly manifest that its me that he chargeth it on as the rest before and after which he denyeth not But again I must recall my self and draw to an end Upon all these considerations I must be excused from the foresaid unprofitable Works But if it appear necessary to vindicate any particular Truth in another way I shall not withdraw while I am able to do it As I find that the very Answering of men doth provoke so when the Cause of God doth not require it I can believe that I am among those that are to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. 2.9 not contradicting or answering again as servants must be to their Masters much less should I 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but imitate that blessed pattern 1 Pet. 2.23 which O that I could more do Yet would I not disswade any from a necessary Defence of Truth for I know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that we must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. 1.9 10 11. But for my part I see not yet any Call to such a Work and if I err I desire that no man by me may be drawn into Error and if I be in the right I know not how to importune men to my opinions if they do not very nearly concern their salvations If their stomacks be against them I am not good at drenching or cramming The Lord pardon all our miscarriages and direct you and succeed you in your labours for his Church I remain Your Brother in the Work of the Gospel RICH BAXTER Octob. 1. 1655. Tales meorum Scriptorum Judices velim qui Responsionem non semper desiderent quum his quae leguntur audierint aliquid contradici Augustin The first Postscript ON the review I observe that the mixture of some passages of some late Papists with the judgement of Bellarmine and the most doth make pag. 50 51 of the second Disput. less clear To remove the obscurity observe that there are divers Questions conjoyned 1. What is necessary to make a man a true Member of the Catholick Church And in that they mostly agree with Bellarmine as cited that no inward grace is necessary 2d Question is what is the Common effect of Baptism on all that Receive it And that they say is the imprinting of a certain Character on the mind What this Character is they are not agreed commonly they think either as Aquinas that it is a certain qualitative power reducible to the second species of quality that is a spiritual power ordinata ad ea quae sunt Divini cultus ut 3. Qu. 93. ar 2. c. Or as Durandus and many others of them that it is but a Relation or as Estius and others that it is such a moral power as is Jus Civitatis and so is a power of receiving the common priviledges of the Church All the Baptized But if they should fictè recipere as to the Sacrament it self they receive not so much as the Character nay saith Aquinas are to be Baptized again when they Repent But the grace of justification and Remission of sin they say is not common to all that are Baptized but only to those that are duely disposed for Baptism Saith Aquinas 3. Qu. 63. ar 3. c. Character propriè est signaculum quoddam quo aliquid insignitur c. Homo autem fidelis ad deo deputatur Primò quidem principaliter ad fruitionem gloriae ad hoc insignitur signaculo gratiae 2. Autem deputatur quisque fidelis ad recipiendum vel tradendum aliis ea quae pertinent ad cultum Dei ad hoc proprié deputatur Character sacramentalis So that a man in mortal sin may receive the Character the Character doth dispose a man to sacramental Grace So that let them come never so sinfully to it yet it puts them in a fair way to justification vid Viguerium cap. 16. ver 15. fol. 154. And it hath this advantage that the grace is delible but the Character indelible Now those Papists that I spoke of in the place I refer to pag. 50.51 do think that all should come to Baptism that have but an historical Belief of the points absolutely necessary that so they may receive this Character and then they have the Church-Priviledges which being unbaptized they have not and though yet they have not Charity or Justification yet when by Pennance they are brought to the disposition which they wanted the foregoing Baptism will be effectual to do away all the sins that were at the time of Baptism Pennance will put away the rest that were since committed Though yet quoad officium they say that men ought to come to Baptism with the due preparations These requisites they say are I. A Right belief say some explicite of the Essentials and implicite of the rest say others it must be rectae fides saltem in communi ut scilicet Credant quod Ecclesia Credit Viguer Just. c. 16. ver 4. § 1. 2. That he repent of his forepast life and die to sin 3. That he have an intention of Receiving the Sacrament as the Church delivereth it and Christ hath appointed And if this intention and a Right belief be wanting the party is to be rebaptized Viguerius ubi sup But what this Belief is and what this Repentance is they are not all agreed But though some few may require Contrition yet their commonest opinion is that Attrition is a sufficient disposition together with a fides informis a right Belief without Charity But yet they require that the will must be towards that Contrition and Charity or fides formata which yet it hath not for it must amplecti Baptismum Baptismi effectum saith Thom. 3. Qu. 69. a. 9. c. that 's the common measure And Charity and Iustification are these effects So that whoever comes with Attrition and a right Belief without Charity shall certainly there receive Charity Justification Remission of guilt and punishment poenarum sed non poenalitatum both in foro Dei Ecclesiae sed non in foro mundano And this because that this disposition doth ex congruo merit Justification in the use of Baptism And for all the rest that come without Attrition or a purpose to leave sin and saith Aquin. without Belief too 3. Qu. 68. a. 8. c. they receive the Character which putteth them in so fair a way to Iustification by Pennance as aforesaid recedente fictione de debitâ dispositione But yet I must say that it is but few that I hear of or read