subjects as to their age against the Anabaptists nor the Agents against the Papists or others Nor are we now to enquire who are those Ministers that are authorized hereto or what is necessary to their calling and authority But supposing these matters already determined our present business is to enquire what that faith is that qualifieth persons to be the just subjects of Baptism or to be such whose Children may receive it upon the account of their faith or Profession I shall not needlesly spend time in seeking to make plain those terms that are already as plain as I can make them 1. What Professing is I have shewed in another Determination of the like nature and I think all understand that it is as much as palam vel publicè fateor 2. By Faith we mean not the Object of faith the doctrine believed only or primarily but the persons own Belief of the doctrine and reception oâ— Christ. 3. By saving faith we mean not to intimate that any faith of its own nature can procure our salvation nor that it doth of its own nature in specie as the nearest reason justifie a sinner nor is any way a proper efficient cause natural or political instrumental or meritorious or any other of a sinners justification but that it is that which the Donor of Christ and Life hath made the condition of our participation of his free-Gift and so doth morally qualifie the subject to be an apt recipient 4. Because there are many other Competitors we comprehend them all under the next words upon the Profession of any other faith that comes short of it 5. We enquire whether we either must or may Baptize such and suppose that the licet and the oportet do here go together so that what we may do we must do supposing our own call as no doubt what we must do we may do But yet that I be not mistaken which is a danger not easily escaped when I have done the best I can to be understood I shall further tell you what I mean by saving faith that is what I take it to be 2. What I mean by profession and what I take that to be 3. What are those other sorts that stand up in Competition with this as a sufficient qualification 4. And then I shall adjoyn some necessary distinctions 5. And so lay down my thoughts in some propositions 6. And then prove that which determineth the question 7. And lastly I shall answer the Arguments that are brought against it and for the contrary Claim And note through the whole that if I do at any time call this profession a Ttile it is in compliance with other mens language it being my own sence that neither the â—aith nor the profession is properly a Title which is fundamentum juris and so an efficient cause but only a condition of a Title 2. That if I say it giveth Right or Title I mean not efficiently as if we could give a Right to our selves but only that it is the condition which performed by us doth morally qualifie us to receive it as freely given 1. By saving Faith I mean an unfeigned Belief of the truth of the Gospel with an unfeigned acceptance of Christ who is there ofâ—ered to be our sufficient and only Saviour from the guilt of sin by his blood and merits and from the power of it by his spirit also and to bring us to glory in the fruition of God Or it is a sinners assent to the truth of the Gospel in the essentials and a sincere consent that God be immediately our only God and Christ our only Saviour and the Holy Ghost our only Sanctifier and we his people in these Relations I say immediately that is at present because if it be only a consent to be such hereafter it is not saving Or as the Assembly say it is the embracing of Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the Gospel Or it is a saving grace whereby we receive and rest upon Jesus Christ alone for salvation as he is offered to us in the Gospel It is in those respects that are essential to the Office o the Redeemer and Saviour 2. By Profession I mean in the proper sense that which hath something present for its Object or subject professed and difference it from a Promise which is onely of something future For it is a present Assent and consent that is to be professed though withal the object of this professed consent must be both the present and future relation to Christ viz that he be our Saviour and we his saved people from this time forth and for ever So that a certain Promise de futuro in the strength of grace may be said to be made in that a man must profess his consent both de presente et de futuro But still though it be to a future Relation to Christ as well as a presenâ— yet is it ever to a preesent as well as a future It is a present consent that Christ be presently my only Saviour or a present acceptance of him to be presently my only Saviour that I must Profess Note also that it is not a Profession that this faith of mine is indeed sincere justifying or saving faith that I speak of but it is a Profession of such a faith as indeed is justifying For many a thousand Profess that faith which is justifying and yet know it not to be justifying while they Profess it nor know not that they do with a saving sincerity believe Not one Godly person I think of ten thousand would deny consent that Christ shall be presently their Saviour and yet most of them know not that this consent is saving If you ask them Are you heartily willing to have Christ to save you both from the guilt and reign of sin and to glorifie you and they will say yea withal their hearts or at least yea if I know my own heart And yet at the same time may doubt whether they be true believers But as it is the having of saving faith that is necessary to salvation and not the knowledge that we have it so a man may Profess that faith which is saving and yet not Profess that he knows it to be saving and it is not the latter but the former that the Minister must expect from people in Baptism 3. We are next to consider what are the Competitors which we now exclude There are divers qualifications that are pleadded as necessary to those that must be Baptized and our question is which of all these is it indeed that may warrant a claim or warrant our Practice 1. The condition that some require in all that must be baptized is Assurance or firm perswasion that they are true Believers or have their sins pardoned by Christ by his promise which they now come to have sealed 2. Another condition pretended as necessary is not such Assurance it self because we know it not but a Profession of such Assurance to the
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
docet Baptismum Acts 15.9.2 Rationi experientiae dictanti eâdem plane fide recipi Baptismum quâ recipitur fructus Baptismi 3. Confessioni ipsius Bellarmini quae extat lib. 2. de Effect Sacr. cap. 13. Adulti per fidem contritionem veram Justificantur antequam reipsa ad Sacramentum accedant Dr. Willet on Rom. 4 Contr. 6 pag. 224. saith The Sacraments then non institut sunt Justificandis sâ—d Justicatis are not instituted for those that are to be Justified but are for them which are already Justified as Paraeus Musculus Loc. Commun de Baptis Artic. 2 pag. mihi 728. Propter hanc nondum debet baptizari qui gratiam Christi praedicatam tam sibi per incredulitatem aversatur tantisper dum in eà tergiversatione incredulitate perseverat cor impoenitens retinet Hâc de causâ Apostoli poenitentiam sidei in Christum confessionem requirebant ab adultis priusquam eos baptizarent Sic Petrus Act. 2. c. His locis patet requiri ab adultis cor poenitens sermonem gratiae recipient in Christum credens ità ut impoenitentes sermonem gratiae recusantes increduli baptismi hujus capaces nondum esse qutant etianisi sint de Electis donec convertantur Scharpius Curs Theolog. de Baptis loc 24. col 1228. Baptismus est primum Novi Testamenti sacramentum à Deo institutum quo Remissio peccatorum Regeneratio initiatio in Ecclesiam significatur in fidelibus obsignatur ut obligatio nostrâ— ad obedientiam Col. 1254.1255 Arg. 2. Qui sunt in foedere gratiae illi necessario servantur licèt non habuerint signum foederis quia foedus ejus signum non sunt ejusdem necessitatis c. Arg. 3. Infantes sine Baptismo dicuntur sancti 1 Cor. 7.14 quia Baptismus infantes sidelium non facit filios Dei sed illis obsignat foedus gratiae illósque in foedere contineri certos reddit Col. 1193. Quid recipiunt Impii in Sacramentis R. Nuda tantùm signa idque ad condemnationem 1. Qua beneficia in Sacramentis oblata tantùm de fide percipiuntur at Impii non habent fidem ergo 2. Nihil spirituale conserunt aut obsignant Sacramenta nisi iis quibus in Verbo hoc promissum extat At in Verbo nihil Impis promittitur sed solis fidelibus quia omnes promissiones habent annexam conditionem fidei ergò 3. Christi beneficia tantùm in legitimo Sacramentorum usu percipiuntur at nulli Impii legitimè Sacramentis utuntur sed indignè participant 1 Cor. 11.27 ergò Lèg Col. 1202 1203. Resp ad Bellarm. Object 5. Cartwright against the Rhemists on Mat. 3.6 pag. 15 saith So that we bring not our children to the end that they should thereby have Remission of sins but because we are by the promise induced to believe that as being the Elect of God they have already received it Otherwise it were as much as to put the Seal to a blank wherein nothing is written nor nothing is given Dr. Fulk against the Rhemists on Rom. 6. § 5. saith The Apostle by express words excludeth Circumcision from being a cause of Justification because Abraham was justified before he was circumcised who is the form of Justification of all men as St. Ambrose saith Com. on Gal. cap. 3. And Baptism succeeding in the place of Circumcision is a seal of Justification by faith in all Christians as Circumcision was in Abraham not a cause thereof See him on 1 Pet. 3.21 The Divines of the Assembly that wrote the Anotat on the Bible say on Act. 8.27 If thou believest c. With a sincere and perfect heart without which Ephraim cannot save he had here to do with a man of years and yet an alien and therefore might not admit him into the Church of Christ untill he had made profession of his faith You see here that it is a saving faith which they think necessary to admittance of which also they speak on ver 12. Faith ought to precede Baptism in men and women of years when they who were aliens and strangers come to be baptized For it is necessary that they should confess their faith and testifie their Conversion before they be admitted by Baptism Ambrosi de Poenit. l. 2. c. 5. And the Repentance that was to precede Baptism in the Jews Act. 2.38 they expound thus This Repentance is not only in knowing or acknowledging our sins or saying God be mercifull but in the change of our minds purposes and evil câ—urses of our Lives As Austin de Eccl. Dogm cap. 58. saith very well Poenitentia vera est poenitenda non admittere admissa destere See also Tertul. advers Marc lib. 2. cap. 24. And on Mat. 3.6 Confessing their sins In words professing their detestation of them and Repentance for them Deodate on Acts 8.12 Were baptized Renouncing by the same means all manner of Impiety and Superstition c. Verse 13. Simon believed made an outward profession of believing or gave some assent to the doctrine but hypocritically and without giving way to the inward operation of the Holy Ghost to a true conversion and lively Regeneration On Mat. 3.6 Were baptized confessing c. viz. to God in the person of John his Minister though not with a particular enumeration but yet with a true feeling of compunction shame humble acknowledgement and with hate and disturbance of sin for to implore divine mercy Act. 19.18 So on Rom. 6.3 Namely for a Sacrament that we are Christian not only by profession but lâ—kewise in spiritual truth receiving the grace and Spirit of God and then co-operating thereto by faith voluntary obedience and newness of life Many other passages to the same purpose I omit Rob. Bodius in Eph. 5.25 26 pag. Opus operatum Papistarum in alio gravissimo errore fundatum est quo nempe statuunt illi Baptizandos priusquaÌ„ hoc signaculo obsignentur Christi membra non esse c. p. 756.757 Et sicut Abrabamo jam per fidem justificato impressus est Des mandato novus ille circumcisionis Character non ad Justitiâ—m primitus illi conferendam sed ad eandem visibili illo signo obsignandam sic etiam in Christum credentibus adultis jámque per eam fidem coram Deo justificatis confertur ex Christi mandato Baptismi sigillum non ut per illud tum primùm Justitiam accipiant ut absurdè docent Adversarii sed ut illa fidei Justitia quâ jam in Christo doncti sunt hoc externo Baptismi sigillo eorum cordibus obsignetur Et pag. 760. col 2. Supponit quod falsum est à nobis constanter negatum suprà refutatum viz. Baptismum esse solum nos Justificandi Sanctificandi instrumentum nec ante mentes conscientias nostras à peccatis ablui quà m externè baptizemur Atque nos hucusque
nothing of mine that can be so plausibly objected to me as a Contradiction to the present assertion as these last words but yet there is no just ground for that objection if I be rightly understood These words are plainly bent against their opinion that make Election or saving Grace to be the Title to Sacraments which the Church must judge of and that not by the Profession of the Claimer but as distrusting his word upon other evidences of Grace as discoveries of the time and manner of Conversion or the practise of those Duties wherein a stricter profession is manifested or the like The men that I oppose hold these Assertions 1. We must give the Sacrament to none but the godly in sincerity 2. We must not believe a mans Verbal Profession though not contradicted 3. But we must require the visible proofs of his godliness 4. At least such as make it probable to us that he is godly To these men I answer 1. That it is false that we must give the Sacraments to none but the truly godly though its true that none else should require them 2. That we must give them to those that profess saving faith though they have it not For it is the Foundation of all humane Converse that we give credit to mens words when we have no just cause to dis-credit them especially in matters out of our reach and within theirs such as are the secrets of their own hearts We must therefore take their Profession unless it be contradicted by such palpable Evidences as Nullifieth it or maketh it invalid 3. That we have no other grounds to proceed on but this and that on their grounds they must profane Gods Ordinance every time they mistake in the judgement of Charity and apply it to ungodly men But not so on ours who must apply it to Professors And therefore they have no warrant to make any further scrutiny into the sincerity of a mans grace as sine qua non to their administration of the Sacrament seeing that a Verbal profession not evidently contradicted and invalidated by words or life is the means of discovery by which we must be satisfied But yet I never dreamed that we must not require profession it self of saving faith and that as a probable sign of the thing professed but that we must look after another kind of faith And if Mr. Blake will not take up with bare profession of his dogmatical faith he will oft profane the Ordinance too For he knoweth not when it is in sincerity in any man And we know by their Ignorance that multitudes are without it He addeth my Confession That the Ignorance of this point hindered me long from administring the Lords Supper But he tels not what point it was Not that the ungodly might lawfully and rightfully claim it nor that I might lawfully give it to the professedly ungodly or to any that profess not saving faith it was no such point But that the Sacrament sealed not as from God that This or that man is a Believer or that he is actually pardoned but only sealeth the conditional promise with such application to the person as is first to be made by his own Receiving and therefore if there be an error and falshood it is committed only by himself and the Minister is not guilty nor the Ordinance wholly in vain And what 's this to the advantage of Mr. Blake's Cause Yet he addeth And I confess as ingeniously that if he can work me to this opinion I am resolved for present to baptize no Infant as being unable to know the Parents faith to justification Answ. 1. But if you be brought to my opinion this Resolution will be changed 2. Are you resolved never to baptize more on the grounds that the Church of Christ hath alwayes baptized on 3. I here propound to you and the world the Reasons of my opinion And then I shall leave to the judgement of wiser men then my self whether your rejection of this opinion be a greater disgrace to it or to you 4. What if you cannot know the Parents justifying faith Will it follow that you may not know a Profession of it 5. You would do the world a curtesie to tell them by what means you are more certain of the sincerity of a Dogmatical Faith than we can be of a Justifying Faith Or will you upon consideration resolve yet never to baptize any more not administer the Lords Supper because you can never be certain that your Receivers have a Dogmatical Faith The next place where I am cited against my self is pag. 150. because I speak of Saints that shall not be saved Answ. And so I do still But yet I still say that Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiore significato And therefore the words Saints Believers c. must ordinarily be understood of such as are justified where there is no limitation or special reason to the contrary The next place where I observe my self cited against my self is p. 158. Because I maintain that it is an Error in Mr. Tombes to say That the Covenant whereof baptism is the Seal is only the the absolute covenant made only to the Elect Therefore Mr. Blake infers And if men in the state of nature be in that covenant that baptism sealeth viz. the conditional Covenant then men in the state of nature and short of justifying faith have right to baptism To which I reply 1. I have shewed you at large how far men unsanctified are or are not in covenant with God and in what sense they have or have not right to baptism And yet must we still use the undistinguished terms as if I simply denyed without distinction Yea before you confess that you tell it abroad in your discourse that I say none have right to baptism but they that have saving faith and that you can hardly gain credit to your words The way to gain credit were to speak truer and specially in your discourse of other men behind their backs A Right by any promise or mortal grant from God to them I denied but I affirmed Hypocrites to be the rightfull objects of the Ministers Act or that we may lawfully give it them and that thus far they have such an improper right And yet still you would make me believe that I simply deny them right 2. Your Consequence here is wholly groundless It is one thing to say as I do That the conditional covenant is made to the non-Elect And another thing to say as you term it that they are in the covenant For that word is very ambiguous If your consequence be good from my Assertion then you may as well prove that Turks Jews and Heathen may have the Sacraments given them For I affirm that the conditional Covenant is made to them 3. The thing that I maintain against Mr. Tombes is that the Sacrament sealeth not only the absolute Promise to the Elect but the conditional Promise and
while he was destitute of the faith which by his action was professed Receiving the Sacrament as a Sacrament is an actual profession oâ— faith And you can never prove that Christ commanded Juda to lye by professing the faith which he had not but only that he commanded him at once to Believe and thus profess it He that will have men compelled to come in to the Church intendeth that they must bring a wedding garment or else they shall hear how camest thou hither You apprehend John Timpsons words to be apposite which imply a contradiction or touch not the point If the right Object be really believed even that which is the full Object of saving faith that very belief is saving and proveth the holiness of the person To the Twelfth I answer General and special Grace I resolvedly maintain But when will you prove that it is a part of General Grace to have a proper Title given by God to the Sacraments which seal up the pardon of sin actually where there is such Title To have the universal conditional promise or covenant ex parte Dei enacted and promulgate and offered the world with many incitements to entertain it is General Grace But so is not either our actual heart-covenanting the Remission of our sin nor such a proper Title to the sign of both When you tell us of the Worlds Potential and the visible Churches actual Interest in General Grace you give us pardon the truth a meer sound of words that signifie nothing or nothing to purpose You cannot call it General Grace Objectively as if the Saints had a particular Objective Grace the rest a General For Generals exist not but in the individuals It is therefore the General conditional promise or gift which you must mean by General Grace This is to the world without indeed but an offer But is it any more to any of the unbelievers or unregenerate within what can be the meaning of an actual Interest in a conditional promise which all the hearers have not and yet is short of the true actual Interest of them that perform the condition I feel no substance in this notion nor see any light in it I confess there is a certain possession that one such man may have more then others but as that is nothing to proper Title so it is not the thing that Sacraments are to seal I have not Mr. Hudsons book now by me but your solution by the two sives had need of some sifting It s one thing to ask what is the end of Sacraments quoad intentionem praecepti and another thing to tell what eventually they produce I do not believe that the sive that brings men into a state of Grace is in the hands of God only so as if he used not Ministers thereto Ministers are said in Scripture to convert and heal and deliver and save men To your 13th and 14th and last I answer That we easily confess that the covenant under the new Testament is better than the old but this makes nothing for you nor do you prove that it doth the force of the first section of your book as it may be the matter of an Objection I have answered before As to your Authorities I say 1. Mr. Vines saith nothing which proveth any approbation of your opinion whether Mr. Burgess do I leave to himself for I know not certainly All that I know of since Dr. Ward is Mr. Blake Mr. Humphrey and John Timpson and John Timpson Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Blake Your 3d and 4th Sections need no more answer I think than what is already given You needed not these pillars to support that point which is the design of your Treatise To these I find you add another the greatest of all pag. 611. which you say sinks deep into you but if reason will do it I will pluck it up by the roots partly by desiring you to peruse what I have twice or thrice before answered to it and partly by adding as followeth That 1. If a man by mistaken doubtings shall keep himself away from a Sacrament that doth not destroy his Title to it or the Grace signified nor is it any ones fault but his own I therefore deny your Minor It is not this doctrine that cuts off doubting Christians from the Sacrament but themselves that do culpably withdraw To your Prosyllogism I deny the Major that doctrine which concludes it sin in the doubtful Christian to Receive doth not cut him off For it concludeth it not his sin to Receive in it self but to Receive doubtingly so that it is not Receiving but Doubting that is properly his sin and withall we say that it is his Duty to Receive and his greater Sin not to Receive than to Receive And though an erring Conscience doth alwaies ensnare and so create a necessity of sinning which way soever we go till it be rectified yet it s a greater sin to trespass against a plain precept than against an erring Conscience in many cases But the main stress lyeth on your proof which is from Rom. 14.23 Whatsoever is not of faith is sin But I could wish you would consider it better before you press home that Text to the same sence against all other duties as you do against this lest you leave God but little service from the Church 1. It is one thing to doubt about indifferent matters such as Paul speaks of as eating c. For there he is condemned if he eat because he is sure it is lawful to forbear but not sure that it is lawful to eat But press not this upon us in case of necessary duty If God command me to pray praise or communicate my doubt will not justifie my forbearance and though it entangle me in sin it cannot disoblige me from duty but I shall sin more if I forbear You say If it be sin for the unregenerate to Receive then cannot the doubting Christian be perswaded and consequently sinneth Ans. True but that 's not long of the doctrine but of his error and it is the case of all practical errors which will not therefore justifie you in blaming the doctrine it s the unavoidable effect of an erring Conscience And again I say he sinneth more in forbearing Whereas you conclude this Argument to be convincing I have told you before why it convinceth not me but to your selves I would ask whether it do not also convince you that your own doctrine is as unsufferable For I am past doubt that not only most Christians but even most doubting Christians have more knowledge that they have true justifying faith than the rest of the world have that they have true Dogmatical faith Though the wicked doubt less because they believe and regard it less yet indeed they have not only far more cause to doubt of the truth of their Dogmatical faith but have less true knowledge of it At least many of them it s thus with when so many true Christians do as much
the Lord whom we most offend in the abundance of his Grace doth forgive us both I must confess that when I think I have a call to dispute I do withall think that I am called to lay open the nakedness of the cause which I oppose to the utmost and being perswaded that I speak against that which is against God me thinks if I do not effectually manifest its falshood I do nothing whereupon I finde that what is spoken against the cause is taken as a dishonour to the person and he takes himself to be wounded or wronged by it when I never touch the person at all so that if I do but once name the Imposture of a common distinction Mr. Blake comes on as if I had called all those learned men cheators or impostors that use that distinction between fides qua quâ yea even those that condescended privately to write to me and so parrallels me with Mr. Craudon herein Mr. Craudon spoke of persons and I speak of distinctions and reasons Is not this a meer violence as if it were to raise an odium and set men together by the ears When I mention the weakness of his own arguing he tells me I must not answer a fool according to his folly and marvails I will set my wit against such a ones Is not such dealing a sufficient prohibition to dispute If I shew not the weakness of an Argument I do nothing If I do I make the Author a fool If I shew that an Argument is unsound or a conclusion false I make him false If I shew that some common distinction hath unobservedly deceived many I make all the Learned that use it impostors even my friends that privately vouchsafe me their writings Well I am satisfied and take the prohibition This book of Mr. Blakes I proclaim unanswerable These are too hard and unjust terms for me to dispute upon Especially when the main issue of a large volume must be but to reckon up a Dear and Reverend Brothers mistakes Yet I must confess that the controversies about the object of Justifying Faith whether Christ as Lord and the object of Baptism do seem to me of so great weight and use to the Church to be well discust that I will not peremptorily resolve against medling so far with his book if any more judicious do convince me it is my duty But I have run much beyond my first intention I thought but to give you some reasons why I should not write any Rejoynder to these learned Reverend men Dr. Owen Mr. Robertson or Mr. Blake and giving you my Reasons I find I have done some of that which those Reasons were brought against and from which I intended to excuse myself But having run so far with the other I shall say the less of Mr. Robertson his dealing with me is like others that have gone before him and do accompany him and I am now so used to it that I the less marvail at it Of this zealous Brutus I must needs say Nescio quid juvenis iste vult sed quicquid vult vehementer vult It s enough to make us admire Gods patience and mercy that will forbear and pardon such things to the Sons of men and it s a sad discovery of the lamentable case of the Church on earth that Grace should have so much corruption with it and that the Church must make use of such sinful guides as we are in the way to glory For though the Scripture saith that a false witness shall not be unpunished and he that telleth Lyes shall not escape and that Railors shall not enter into the kingdom of God yet I hope they may have Grace that do it in a mistaken zeal for God though Self may have too much hand in it But we may see in our miscarriages that it is not for nothing that God hath let loose such Judgements upon Professors and such floods of reproach upon us our selves that serve at his Altar as lately he hath done I dare say that many a Heathen would have scorned to have given out against his greatest Enemy such volumes of notorious impudent falshoods and imprudent railings as Mr. Robertson and other of his spirit have lately done against one that was none of their enemy Might I but have truth from them I care not for my own part for the worst of their words But who knows how to confute such volumes whose very substance is compounded of gross falshoods and calumnies Either the Reader of Mr. Robertsons Book and his associates will also read mine or they will not If they will not let them take their course and believe what they list and not what is true for how can I help it if I write again what likelyhood that they will read it that will not read that which is written already If they lose by it no more then I what cause have I to care But if they will but read the book which Mr. Robertson opens his mouth against I desire no more if that will not satisfie them and make them lament over the spirit of this man I have no more to say to them they are none of the men for whom I write But Mr. Robertson hath little cause to say that I am for Justification by Works when I hope that such men as he are justified whose works are such as I once hoped no man had been so guilty of that had the least fear of God before his eyes I profess I marvail what 's the matter that the wasps of the Nation are gathered about my ears I cannot but hope yet that there are few more such in England as those that I have had to deal with His first assault of me is about the Inception of Gods immanent acts But never had I such a confuter before no not Mr. Craudon himself He bestows a whole Epistle on part of his book to tell the Reader how he detests my Blasphemy and that 's my confutation Not a line of my Book doth he cite and confute But in general tells me that I affirm new Immanent acts in God and then cryes out upon the blasphemy Must we write confutations of such men as these No they that will believe them let them take that they get by it it s nothing to me that cannot remedy it What if twenty men will swear that I have written there is no God must I write against them all I laid down my mind in the case that I am thus dealt with about in several propositions as plain as I could speak the sum of the chief part of them was this that the substance of the Act as commonly called that is the Essence of God is neither multiplyed nor beginneth nor endeth but the Relations and extrinsick denominations are many and may begin and end Yet would I not presume to determine with Pet. Hertado de Mendoza and others that the Relations are ex parte Dei but only took what the Thomists grant that
signs is truly a â—hristian 7. The Essentials primary in the Matter are to all the same but the Terms of Necessity for expressing them are not the same to all either for number of words or sentences seeing one can receive that in ten words anoâ—her cannot in twenty And hence is it that if twenty men be set to draw up the Essentials of Christianity they may do it in twenty several forms of words and yet all express the same essâ—ntial Matter and one Confession may be in ten lines and another in more pages and yet both speak the same Fundamental Truâ—hs one more concisely or generally and the other more copiously and plainly 8. Whatever other words may be necessary to some besides those that directly express the above-said Matter of Belief in God the Father Son and Ghost they are not to this end necessary that we may have more matter of Faith than is there contained as if it were not all that is essential but that this may by the ignorant be better understood so that those other particular Articles which some call Fundamentals are but expositions of those three Fundamentals that indeed we may receive them 6. In point of duty a Minister must require a more full and large expression of his Faith from one man than from another viz. From those that he hath apparent cause to suspect of not understanding or not believing what the more Comprehensive Concise Terms do express but yet if either he neglect that duty or his previous inquiry and examination though sinfully or if the party that gave no cause of suspition be yet ignorant or an unbeliever it doth not follow that the Concise Profession was a Nullity for want of larger Explication He that professeth to believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost hath made a Profession of saving Faith in all the Essentials as to the sense of the words and it is to be taken as valid in foro Ecclesiastico in the Judgement of the Church if there be not some of the above-named particulars apparent to invalidate it as Contradiction apparent Ignorance Derision c. May it not be the safest way to imitate the Scripture examples in such cases where we alway find Profession in order to Baptism made but in few comprehensive terms for as by this way we follow the surest Guid so are we most likely to comprehend all the Essentials and leave none out when spinning out a Profession to a Volumn in more particular Explicatory termes if these same generals be not among them may leave out much of the Essence of Religion which these do comprehend Not that I would have the people hear no longer discourses for Explication but it is one thing to put them into a Sermon or Discourse and another thing to put them into the Profession of Faith If notwithstanding all that is said any shall still be prejuced against the requiring of a Professon of saving Faith because of the difficulty of discerning when it is that all the Fundamentals are professed let such consider that it doth as much concern those that differ from us to untye this knot if they can as us We have long shewed the Papists that themselves must be forced to distinguish between those points of Faith which some may be saved without and those which none can be saved without and so indeed Bellarmine and others of them confess And those that say it is a Dogmatical Faith that must be professed must needs comprehend all the aforesaid Essentials in their Dogmatical faith or else they cannot call it the Christian Faith So that as to the Object of Assent they are equally concerned in the difficulties 2. And then for the second part of Faith which is the Wills consent or Affiance or Entertainment Receiving Acceptance Embracing or what other term to that purpose you will use of the Good proposed in the Gospel the same forementioned words do also comprehend all that is Essential to the Object of this Act for the Will as well as the Intellect to Believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost is all our Faith that is To receive God as our God our Creator our Soveveraign and Felicity and Jesus Christ our Saviour from the guilt and power of Sin and to bring us to everlasting Glory and this by Ransoming us by his death and merits By Rising Interceding Teaching Ruling us and at last Raising and Judging us and to receive the Holy Ghost as the witness of Christ the inspirer of the writers of his Word and as our Sanctâ—fier Thus is the Object of true Christian faith expressed as containing the Objects of the Will To conclude in a doubtfull case it is safe to be as express and particular as we can in our Instructions and Examinations and not barely to keep to the meer Essentials because there are many of the Adjacent truths or superstructures which are of so great use as that the fundamentals are hardly and seldom well entertained without them And yet when we play not the part of Instructors and preparers but of Administrators of Gods Ordinances then we must take heed of exacting more as necessary then is indeed necessary and in difficult Cases when the difficulty lyeth in the Darkness of the persons heart and you doubt by reason of the scantness of his expressions whether he believe as he speaketh we must give credit to his own words as far as reason will permit and to judge the best though we may fear the worst and this will be our Duty and if we should be deceived it will not prove our sin but his that makes the false profession And this leadeth me up to the next part of my Task which is having thus explained the Nature of the requisite Profession to prove the Affiâ—mative of the Question THESIS Miâ—isters mâ—y admit persâ—ns into the visible Church of Christ by Bâ—ptism upon the bare Verbal Profession of the true Christian saving faith such as before described without staying for or searching after any further Evidences of sincerity ordinarily and as of necessity to this end This Proposition I prove in short by these Arguments following Argum. 1. We have the warrant of their approved Example in Scripture whom we are to eye as our Pattern in Administrations for the administring of Baptism upon a bare Verbal Profession therefore we may so Administer it I here suppose the Practice of the Church before Christs Incarnation which is out of all doubt Moses took the Verbal profession of all Israel to be a Covenant between God and them wherein they avouched the Lord to be their God and God avouched them to be his people On the like terms did Joshua Asa and others renew the Covenant of God with that people and on the same terms was circumcision administred On these terms did John Baptize multitudes whose lives he knew not before and of whom he required no further Evidence than these present Professions to satiâ—fie him of their
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
Eph. 4.12 what Saints they were that were to be perfected and 5 3. what Saints they were that must not so much as name Coveteousness filthiness c. And 3.8 Paul professeth himself less then the least of all Saints But Paul never did nor would profess himself less then the least of Mr. Blakes Saints who are not as much as by profession in a state of salvation nor from under the curse and wrath of God He that pronounceth them accursed with Anathema Maranatha that loved not the Lord Jesus bids grace be with them that love him in sincerity 1 Cor. 16.22 Eph. 6.24 would not have pronounced himself less than the least of these excommunicate accursed ones And were I worthy to be heard I would advise my Reverend Brother to better consideration before he make such accursed Saints or Churches or Believers at least that are visibly so and that he would be cautelous of Canonizing those on whom Paul pronounceth Anathema Maranatha To proceed the Church of Philippi are called Saints True but what Saints such on whom Paul was confident that he which had begun a good work in them would perform it till the day of Jesus Christ to whom it was given on behalf of Christ not only to believe but to suffer for his sake who alwaies obeyed in presence absence for God wrought in them to will and to do they only communicated to Paul in giving receiving and they were such as bad cause alway to rejoyce Phil. 1.6 29. and 2.12 13. and 4.15 4. The Church of the Colossians are called Saints But what Saints such as had faith in Christ Jesus and love to all Saints and had hope laid up for them in heaven who were made meet to be partakers of the Inheritance of the Saints in Light being delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the Kingdom of his dear Son that is the Church in whom they had redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of sins being reconciled by the body of his flesh through death to be presented holy and unblameable and unreprovable in his sight if they continued in the faith grounded and setled and were not moved away from the hope of the Gospel whose ardor and stedfastness of faith in Christ Paul beheld in the Spirit with joy who were buried with Christ in baptism and risen with him through faith and being before dead were quickened with him and had the forgiveness of all trespasses having put off the body of the sins of the flesh who were dead and their life was hid with Christ in God and who shall appear with Christ in Glory when he appeareth Col. 1. and 2. and 3. If it shall be replyed that Paul spake all this of them in the Judgement of Charity or denominated the whole from the better part and the Profession of the rest I say even so also it is that he calleth them all Saints the denomination is on the same ground as the description is I cannot imagine what reasonable evasion can be made from this evidence The Thessalonians are consequentially called Saints in being called a Church of Christ. And what a Church and what Saints such as had the work of Faith Labour of Love and patience of Hope in our Lord Jesus Christ whose Election Paul knew who turned to God from Idols to serve the true and living God and to wait for his Son from heaven who delivered them from the wrath to come they received the word as the word of God which effectually worked in them that believed who followed the Churches in suffering who were Pauls joy and glory in the presence of Christ at his coming whose faith and Charity was so reported to Paul that he tells them be liveth if they stand fast for God had not appointed them to wrath but to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ. 1 Thess. 1 2. 3. 5. They were such Saints whom Christ would come at last to be glorified in and such Believers in whom he will then be admired even because the Gospel was believed among them therefore say not To believe the Gospel is a common thing short of saving Faith 2 Thess. 1. We see then what the Church and Saints at Thessalonica was The Hebrews to whom the Apostle wrote are called Saints Heb. 13.24 And he doth not groundlesly call them Saints for they were such as were made a gazing-stock by reproaches afflictions and became companions of them that were so used took joyfully the spoiling of their goods knowing in themselves that they have in heaven a better and more enduring substance vid. ult Heb. 10.33 34 35. They were such indeed as he saw cause to exhort to perseverance and warn of the danger of Apostacie and the best have need of that But yet though he so spake he was perswaded better things of them and such as accompany salvation and he gives his reason of it Heb. 6.9 10 11. And having said so much of the several Churches under the name of Saints I shall proceed and shew you what they are as Churches though this will after fall in in another Argument because it will be fittesâ— for all to lie together and then I shall refer you hither when this afterward falls in You may see by what is said what Churches all these were that are already mentioned and consequently what a Church is in Scripture-sense not a society of men professing a faith short of justifying but a society of men professing true saving faith yea so far professing it as to induce the Apostles to denominate them such as supposing them such indeed For as they knew some were such so did they not know the contrary by any particulars except those whom they commanded them to cast out as none of them The Apostle Peter writes to the scattered Jews that professed Christianity And what kind of Christians or Believers did he take them for Why for such as were Elect according to the fore-knowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit unto Obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. And Mr. Blake cannot say that this was a common Election or common Sanctification and Obedience and Sprinkling of Christs blood For it is added that God of his abundant mercy had begotten them again to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead to an Inheritance incorruptible and undefiled that fadeth not away reserved in heaven for them and that they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last times wherein they greatly reâ—oyced suffering the trial of their precious faith and having not seen Christ loved him and believeing in him rejoyced with joy unspeakable and full of glory receiving the end of their faith the salvation of their souls If all these people had not or professed and seemed not to have a saving faith I know not what words can express a saving faith nor
neer Learned Friends have done for more than I will speak of It s like he will hardly exact a Profession of saving Repentance from the lapsed for their Restoration to the communion of the Church if he will not do it of the Church themselves in their Sacramental communion Argum. 4. Furthermore they that will not profess true Love to Christ as a Redeemer are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper But no man can Profess true Love that will not Profess true faith Ergo c. The Major is proved in that it is a Sacrament of communion in Love We receive the highest expressions of Christs love and are to receive them with gratitude which hath alwaies love in it Argum. 5. They that profess not true Pope of Christs coming in Glory are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper But none can do that but the Professors of a saving faith Therefore the Major is proved because it is the very end and use of the Sacrament to exercise Hope of Christs coming Do this in remembrance of me till I come which Implyeth Expectation or Hope Argum. 6. No man is to be admitted to the Lords Supper that Professeth not a sincere love to the Saints as Saints But so can none do that Profess not a saving faith without contradicting himself Ergo. The Major is proved in that the very business of that Church there next their communion with Christ is to have communion with the Saints in Love and if they be at variance but with one they must leave their gift at the Altar and go first and be reconciled to their Brother and then come and offer their gift But Mr. Blake is so far from excluding the ungodly that he would not have us so much as disswade them from coming Pag. 196. he saith to that 1. It is as I suppose without all Scripture Precedent to warn men upon account of want of a new life by the Spirit wholly to keep off from this or any other Ordinances of Christ that we should warn men upon this account upon this very ground to hold off from all address to Ordinances I have not learnt Answ. That we should disswade them to come till they have that Faith and Repentance and Love to the Brethren which is the fruit of a new life I have proved and more have done it than you will ever well answer And it will not follow as you pretend that then none must come that have not the certainty of their sincerity in the Faith as I shall further shew when I come purposely to your Objections And where you talk of unregenerate mens being incapable of examining themselves it s a great mistake else no wicked man could despair if he be not able to find himself to be wicked And then it would be a sufficient Evidence of Grace for a man to find himself graceless which is a contradiction And it s an unhappy confusion that Mr. Blake is guilty of almost all along while he pleadeth against the Interest of the Regenerate only in the Sacraments that he confoundeth most commonly the Professors of Justifying Faith and holiness with his Professors of a faith short of Justifying and thus in his arguing against Mr. Hooker and Galaspie and others carrieth on the matter in the dark as if these were all one or the arguments will serve for the one that will serve for the other which is meerly to lose his own and his Readers labour or leave him deceived which is worse How many leaves of that volumn and his former of the covenants are guilty of this dark misleading work I could willingly here answer his Arguments for unregenerate mens right to this Sacrament but 1. I shall meet with much more about their pretended right to baptism anon and the answer of those will serve for both 2. And he hath so mixt the two Cases of Professors of saving faith and of not saving together that if I deal with him on the later he may say he speaks of the former The first Argument of Galaspies 201 which he answereth is from the Nature of Sacraments which are to signifie that we have already Faith in Christ Remission of sin by him and Union with him The sense of the Argument is That seeing Sacraments according to Christs institution are confirming signs presupposing the thing signified both on our part and on Gods therefore none should use them that have not first the thing signified by them at least those at age To this Master Blake answereth This to me is as strange as new that Sacramental signs declare shew that we have Faith remission of sins The Sacrament now in question is a sign of the body blood of Christ in whom by faith remission of sins may be obtained I know but that it is a sign either that we do believe or that we have remission of sin otherwise than upon believing to which this engages but not presupposes I know not Repl. Though I undertake not to defend all the Arguments that other men use in this Case yet this doth so much concern the cause of baptism which I am now debating that I shall give you this reply to it 1. The sacramental Actions are signs as well as the substance of bread and wine The Offer with Take eat signifieth the offer of Christ to us to be received and applyed the Taking and Eating and Drinking signifieth our Acceptance Application of him With himself is offered the pardon of sin and given to all that Accept him which by Taking Eating and Drinking we profess to do It is my duty to tell you that it is sad that a Treatise of Sacraments should profess not to know that our believing and Remission is here signified It s pity but this had been known before you had written of them at least Controversally What Divines are there that deny the Sacraments to be mutual signs and seals signifying and sealing our part as well as Gods and how ill do you to wrong the Church of God by seeking to make men believe that these things are new and strange If it be so to you its pity that it is so But sure you have seen Mr. Gatakers Books against Doct. Word and Davenant wherein you have multitudes of sentences recited of our Protestant Divines that affirm this which you call new It is indeed their most common doctrine that the Sacrament doth pre-suppose Remission of sin and our faith and that they are instituted to signifie these as in being though through infancy or error some may not have some benefits of them till after it is the common Protestant Doctrine that Sacraments do solemnize and publikely own and confirm the mutual Covenant already entered in heart as a King is crowned a Souldier listed a Man and Woman married after professed consent so that the sign is Causal as to the Consummation and Delivery as a Key a Twig and Turff in giving possession but consequential to the Contract
him by a living faith that is to offer him to all that he may be so accepted and on condition of such Acceptance may be theirs But if some unsound Professors shall in their way lay hold of him and say he is theirs it is they that make the false application and not either God or we So if we are to comfort any afflicted conscience we are no heart-searchers and therefore cannot say to any Thou art a Believer and therefore this comfort belongs to thee but we can only deliver them this Major Proposition This Comfort belongeth to all true Believers and this conditional conclusion If thou be a true Believer it belongs to thee But it is the person himself that must affirm I am a true believer and so must make the conclusion absolute And then if the Assumption be untrue it is his own and not Gods or ours So we are to offer the Sacraments and Christ in the Sacraments to all true penitent Believers This is our Duty If any now will step forth and take the Lords Supper among the faithful it is himself that maketh the sinful application And if any will say Baptize me for I do heartily repent and believe If this be false it is he that makes the false Application And therefore here is no Divine donation can be proved nor any consent of God to his claim though we are justifiable for the actual giving it upon that claim So that here is no such Investiture that can be proved which conveyeth any Title or warranteth any claim There is only a command to us to offer it to true Believers and to give it by actual delivery to such Believers and to believe them that say they are such Believers till we have just cause to discredit them or can sufficiently disprove them So that actual delivery upon such a false profession of theirs is morally no Gift nor Investiure but only such as is meerly Physical as to any collation of Right the application being by themselves who can give themselves no Right and not by God who never gave consent to the claim And thus I have proved and vindicated the first part of my first Proposition concerning the Sacraments considered as Benefits that God hath not made any gift of them to any but true Believers The two next I need to say less to because enough is said on the by in vindicating the former The second was that seeing God hath given no Title therefore they may not lawfully claim them And this is clear from the common Laws of Propriety that no man may lay claim to that which he hath no Title to He that would not be questioned as an Usurper must look to his Right before he take possession or use Object What another is commanded to give me that I may lawfully claim as my Right Answ. He is commanded to give it Believers and to you if you will profess that you are a Believer but withall you are forbidden to profess it if it be false and therefore that is a sufficient Bar against your claim Coram Deo in the Judgement of God though its true that Ecclesia Judice your claim is such even upon a false profession which they cannot deny If they be commanded to give it you if you claim and you not commanded and warranted to claim it then their duty of giving it upon such claim will prove no title in you before God The next part of my Proposition doth so clearly follow from what is said that I need not say any more to prove it It is your sin to claim and receive that Sacrament which the Minister may deliver to you upon your claim without sin because you must judge by heart-evidence but the Minister cannot But whereas Mr. Blake doth make it so strange that a Minister may lawfully administer that Sacraments to a man which Coram Deo he hath no right to against which he is so confident I would demand of him whether Coram Deo or Deo Judice a man have true title to Sacraments without any faith at all I mean a downright Infidel or Heathen If he say No then he yieldeth all the cause For if this Heathen will so far play the Hypocrite as to profess a Dogmatical Faith as he saith or a saving faith as the Church saith then he will confess that it is the Ministers duty to give him the Sacrament upon his claim and so he must give it to a man that Deo Judice hath no true right to it But if he say that such an Heathen hath right to it Deo Judice I shall not stand now any further to confute him then 1. to challenge him to prove his Title And 2. to advise him to be cautelous how he undertaketh to justifie his title and claim at the barr of God when the reckoning comes and these matters must be reviewed And thus I have done with the first Proposition which speaks of Sacraments ut Beneficia and proved that God hath not given by Promise Testament or any Deed of Gift a proper title to Sacraments to any but sound believers and their seed which will warrant them to claim and receive them 2. The next thing to be done is to speak of the Receiving of Sacraments as it is Officium a Duty constituted by some command of God and the Proposition is that God hath not commanded or allowed any that have not saving faith to claim and receive the Sacraments in that condition but hath made it the necessary order of their duty first to repent and believe and then to claim and receive the Sacraments Arg. 1. If no man is commanded or warranted to receive the Sacraments without a Profession of true faith and repentance then not without that faith and repentance it self But the antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent The Antecedent is proved in the other Disputations The Consequence is plain For no man is commanded or warranted to lye or make a false profession But to profess that Faith and Repentance which they have not is to lye or make a false profession at least if it be not a profession limited Therefore c. I have proved before that such a Profession is not only pre-requisite to Sacraments but also that the very reception of them doth contain it Arg. 2. No command can be produced in Scripture which will warrant a man to seek and receive the Sacraments without a saving faith Therefore there is no such command I shall pass by all other Arguments because they may be gathered from what I have said already and shall only enquire into the commands which are pretended because the proof lieth on them Obj. Every Jew and his children were commanded to be circumcised Therefore the impenitent hypocrites c. are commanded to receive the Sacraments As Gen. 17.14 Answ. 1. They were not commanded to be circumcised whether they consented to the Covenant or not but Circumcision was the token of the Covenant and a
these priviledges are theirs by conveyance which is not 1. Let Mr. Blake answer for himself 2. It was a gentler passage than this that caused Mr. Blake presently to inferr It seems he hath met with a company of cheaters 3. But to call his brethren cheaters is nothing so dangerous as to call the conveyance fraudulent That do not I do for I say that there is no such conveyance unless you take the word improperly Mr. Blake They may yet tell him that a door is here opened to Anabaptism or multiplication of Baptism A new door of which either nothing or very little hath ever been spoken Ans. 1. They may tell me so but how will you prove that they tell me true I see by you that telling is easier then proving and commoner then truth 2. Your making this a door to Anabaptism doth give them that which you cannot warrant them and advantage the Anabaptists more under pretence of renouncing their advantages than you desire the common success of passionate oppositions 3. Your feigning this to be new and never or little spoken of before in my understanding importeth one of these consequences either as if you had said All Historie is false believe nothing that ever you read in them nay trust not your eyes and ears that see and hear the contrary to what I say or else as if you had proclaimed Take heed how you credit even Godly Divines in the heat of their contention even in the most palpable matters of fact Mr. Blake When discovery shall be made that the Title when Baptism was administred was barely seeming then all was Null ab initio in such proceedings and as such persons alwaies were in the eyes of God so now in the eye of men they are unbaptized persons Ans. What proof of all this but you say so 1. Baptism is sometimes taken for the meer external Ordinance sometime for that conjunct with the grace signified or with the effects As to the actual conveyance of pardon and life I affirm that Sacraments are uneffectual to unbelievers and so do you If that be a Nullity call them Null But how prove you that the external Ordinance is a Nullity where there was no Title The Title indeed was Null ab initio but prove that the Ordinance was so too well this must be proved from Simon Magus and from Titius If Titius got possessions presumed to be his due inheritance and afterwards it be made appear that it never pertained to him but to Sempronius all is to be judged invalid Ans. But if this possession was delivered by a sealed instrument as possession of pardon is to a Traytor or Malefactor where right and possession are co-incident and the Tenor of this instrument be that only those that are returned to loyalty shall have the benefit e. g. pardon and a messenger is sent to deliver these instruments to all that profess Loyaltie here if any Traytor shall profess that Loyalty and seek to kill his soveraign the next day though all be Null as to the effect of pardoning him yet the external acts of sealing and delivery are not themselves Nullities And if it be the will of the Prince that this act shall be effectual to its end when the person shall return to his Loyalty without the sealing the instrument anew it may even to the effect be valid afterward that through his fault was not so before But if the Anabaptists must have this news that I am turned so far to them as to open them a new door let them take altogether and make merry that Mr. Blake and I are turned so far Anabaptists together and then there may be hope that while we two hold open the door more may come in ere long He oft tells us that it is a Dogmatical faith or a faith short of justifying that entitleth to Baptism England swarms with people that have not a Dogmatical faith and yet they receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and their Children are Baptized and what faith their ancestors had who knoweth There 's scarce a week but I hear one or other tell me that Christ is God and not Man or Man and not God or that they do not think any one hath been our surety or made any satisfaction to God or suffered for our sins If all these Baptisms and other administrations be Nullities and if Mr. Blake will but teach that all should be rebaptized whose parents are now discovered to want the Title of a Dogmatical faith I much fear he will yet have more rebaptized persons in one County than now is in Ten at least If the Minister be commissioned to deliver the Sacrament on an unjust claim this justifieth his act and as he did his duty so he hath no Scripture for the repeating it I before instanced in the case of a scornful Jew that purposely comes to Baptism to deride Christ or to be in a capacity to mischief his cause or people Hath this man a Title by Gods Donation to Church-membership seals and all the blessed priviledges of the visible Church which Mr. Blake sets forth If he have then malicious wickedness is the condition of Gods great mercies And when shall we see the Donation that conveyed this Title to him Mr. Blake 6. They may tell you that that Scripture distinction of Circumcision in the flesh and Circumcision in the heart is hereby overthrown Ans. 1. They may tell it me twice before I will believe them once 2. They may tell it you as well as me Was it not possible for a Jew upon mistake to Circumcise a man that had no Right to it and yet upon some kind of misunderstood profession Resolve whether that were a Nullity first for your self and then I will study a further answer Mr. Blake 7. They may tell him that this principle standing all persons dying unregenerate die unbaptized yea all that were baptized in infancy and after converted remain still unbaptized Answ. 1. What! if I saw them Baptized with mine eyes many such tales I know I may hear and I will believe them as I see cause 2. I suppose by this that you seem your self to judge that all that are without a Dogmatical Faith are unbaptized Mr. Blake 8. That it is much to be feared if not certainly to be concluded that the Major part by far of Worcestershire combination consists of unbaptized persons there being I doubt no good evidence of true conversion in the most considerable part of them I am sure it is voiced that the most prophane where the Minister carrieth any authority are as forward for subscription as any Answ. 1. As to your bold censure of so many persons whose faces you never saw and whose names you never heard it sheweth us what you dare do You might more safely have learnt of Christ Judge not that ye be not Judged and have hearkened to Paul Who art thou that Judgest another mans servant 2. Especially when your censure is founded
Church which is no more for him than for me but only that it is the profession of a Dogmatical Faith and not the Faith it self that is necessary to give this Right But a man would think that if it be not enough for an evidence in our case of an Analogical Right Coram Ecclesiâ that a man subscribe the Covenant of God of which Mr. Blake pag. 143. then it can be no good evidence in his cause of a Right Coram Deo Ecclesiâ that a man subscribe or speak that which he never understood or if his Profession of Dogmatical Faith without the Faith itself be a good Title then the Profession of a justifying Faith without the Faith it self may so far serve turn as to justifie the Baptizing and to prohibite rebaptizing 4. And to Mr. Blakes censure which I will not censure as it deserves of the Major part by far of the Worcestershire combination as he speakes whether it be that he know them better than I which is unlikely when he professeth to conjecture on reports or whether I be more charitable or less rigorous in judging of mens sincerity or what ever else makes the difference of our censures I will be bold to say that I know not one person of all the Worcestershire combination as he calls them whom I know to be an unjustified unsanctified person that I can remember though I confess I have no small doubts and fears of many Nay more I have more hopes than fears I mean I rather think that they are truly Godly than that they are not of the far greatest part of them that I know even of many to one and more comparatively then I will now mention And whereas Mr. Blake doth instead of answering cast aside above twenty of my Arguments as not concerning him and so put them off with a wet finger I say that 's too easie a way of answering to satisfie me how ever it may do by those that are more easily satisfied and with a word I shall restore and reenforce them as with a word he puts them by It is one thing to ask whether the profession of justifying Faith be a duty to all that come to be Baptized Another whether it be so necessary that they ought not to come nor we to admit them without it and a third whether Baptism without it be a Nullity Mr. Blakes general assertion did in the proper sence express the first And thereupon because I took his words as he spoke them he better expoundeth them and confesseth that justifying Faith is a duty prerequisite to Baptism but not such a duty without which Baptism is Null or we may not Baptize and therefore he puts off above twenty Arguments at once and saith that they make nothing against him But I restore them all or most at once though one is enough by telling him that they prove that the profession of a Faith that is justifying must be expected by the Church and found in all that are admitted to Baptism and that none ought to be Baptized upon the profession of any lower Faith This they prove and this is the controversie In conclusion I will add but these two things and I should think such two might serve the turn 1. Consider when the Right that I denyed is a Promise-right whether Mr. Blake after all his pains do not yield up the cause when he expresly saith pag. 124. So that I conceit no promise of these ordinances made to such a faith but an actual investiture of every such believer in them What means this if it yield not the cause and unsay not the rest if no promise then no Right by promise and I seek no more What is the actual investiture but actual Baptizing and Receiving the Lords Supper and he knows that I did not deny that they actually received it 2. Me thinks Mr. Blake and my Reverend Brethren of his minde that marvail at my maintaining of this cause should bear some reverence to Augustine who so diligently defendeth it Besides what he saith in Enchirid. ad Laurent cap. 67 68. he hath a well known treatise purposely on this very subject or on that doth not considerably differ There were some voluptuous persons especially at Rome that kept concubines and yet professed to be Believers and would have been baptized but would not yet put away their concubines whereupon when the Ministers denyed them baptism some lay-men that desired the increase of the Church and misunderstood the doctrine of justification by faith only did plead that because by faith only we are justified and works are to follow as the fruits of faith therefore these persons upon their believing might be baptized and afterward they should be dealt with for the reforming of their lives Whereupon Augustine writes that Treatise de fide operibus to prove the contrary that they cannot be justified or saved by any faith but that which works by love and that they must not be baptized till they actually put away their Concubines and other the like sins and promise also to forsake them for the future so that as it was not any presbyters but lay-men that raised this doubt so both they and Agustine seem agreed that the same faith that is saving is requisite to baptism or as to the Church the Profession of it And therefore Austin thus repeats the occasion in his Retractions lib. 2. cap. 38. pag. Edit Paris Missa sunt mihi nonnulla quae ità distinguerent à bonis operibus Christianorum fidem ut sine hâc non posse sine illis autem perveniri suaderetur ad aeternam vitam Quibus respondens librum scripsi cujus nomen est de Fide Operibus in quo disputavi non solùm quemadmodum vivere debeant gratiâ Dei regenerati verùm etiam quales ad lavacrum regenerationis admitti If I cited but a line or leaf you might say I dismembered it and left behind me the sence but when the whole book is to this very purpose no such thing can be said see especially cap. 21. so that if I err I have no worse a man then Augustine to lead me the way As for Mr. Blak's impotent accusations of my owning the cause of the Papists against the Protestant cause in the matter of Justification because I misliked the by extream opinions of some men as if all had agreed in these opinions or the Protestant difference with the Papists in the matter of Justification did lye either only or principally in these I look upon it as such dealing as must be expected from angry men and as Children of the same Father do sometime use against one another when they fall out It was doubtless my sin that I was no more cancelor◠of provoking him as it is his to be carryed to such injustice by his passions as that and many other passages do contain But I am confident he forgiveth me and I am certain I forgive him and I am perswaded
As to the Antecedent Christ Commanded and Required Iudas his Profession as a sign of his mind and so of the thing professed that is as True And he neither Required nor Accepted any other profession But only he Permitted him to remain in his familâ— though his profession was false and not such as he required 2. As to the Consequence No man therefore can hence argue that we may Require or Accept a profession which is not a sign apparent of the thing professed for that Christ did not nor yet that we must permit a known false professor because Christ did But this will be proved under the next points to which it leads us The other two depending on the same grounds may be dispatcht together And so I conclude that it cannot be gathered from the example of Judas that we must not excommunicate or keep from the Lords Table such as we can prove to the Church to be unregenerate or to be such as Judas was For 1. There may be Reasons to suspend the performance of that which ordinarily is to be done And so Christ had special Reasons to forbear the excommunicating of Judas till the last because he was to be the Instrument of his suffering that the Scripture might be fulfilled When we are sure that we have as good a Reason to suspend an act of discipline yet that will not be an excuse for our ordinary suspense or a Rule for our ordinary practice 2. The Lord Jesus would have Ministers lye under a double obligation for their safe proceeding The one is to take seeming Believers and Penitent persons into the Church and to the Sacraments The other is to take a Credible Profession for the Evidence of that Faith and Repentance And accordingly he would teach us no more by his example And therefore no wonder if he did not excommunicate Judas or keep him from the Sacrament for it was by his Divine heart-searching power and omniscience that Christ knew Judas to be an hypocrite while he made a Profession that was Probable or Credible to a meer man All therefore that can hence be gathered is that if by heart-searching omniscience we knew a man to be an Hypocrite we might not keep him back or excommunicate him and yet that will not be proved from the Text neither till you can prove that Christ might not have cast out Judas as well as that he did not for as is said he might forbear him for some special Cause Though I grant that on other grounds it may possibly be proved that we might not do it because we cannot communicate our evidence to the Church But there is no place for this arguing till men are omniscient Christ is our pattern as he acteth as a man and not when he exerciseth Divine omniscience 3. Christ knew what was in man and need not that any man should tell him John 2.25 And yet he questioned with men in humane Language he asketh some whether they believed and Peter whether he loved him Did he expect an answer from men for the bare words sake or as a sign of their mind Did he oblige them to a true answer or to a false The case is not doubtfull And if by his omniscience he knew that many of these answers were lyes and yet he silently permitted the answerer to seem a Disciple it will not hence follow that we must accept a profession simply for it self and when it is not credible that is that we must believe a known lye or that we must use those that we have no cause to believe as if we did believe them 4. And if their Argument were of any strength it would not only prove that we must keep in the Church and admit to the Sacrament those that we know to have the Devil in them and to be Traytors to Christ contriving the destruction of his Church as Judas did of his person and to be Thieves and Deceivers as Christ knew Judas to be and so overthrow all Church Discipline contrary to the Scripture Laws but also that it is not Lawfull for a Master to put a known Thief and Traytor out of his Family or to prohibit him familiarity with him at his Table and dipping his morsels with him in the same dish For Christ did this by Judas as well as the other But it is contrary to Psalm 15. and 101. and Mat. 18.17 and 1 Cor. 5.11 and many other Texts that we should hold such familarity with such men But that we may not lawfully do otherwise is a Doctrine that I hope no wise Christian Ruler of a Family will believe 5. The state of Christs Church being then but in gathering and ordering was not so ripe for the execution of excommunication as after his Resurrection and the ordering of the Churches But though I have said all this on the supposition that Christ did give the Sacrament to Judas yet I shall now proceed to shew that it is either certain that Judas did not receive it or not probable that he did My evidence is this 1. There is the Concurrent Testimony of three Evangelists that may assure us that Judas went out before the Sacrament Matthew dispatcheth Christs speeches to Judas before the Sacrament and to those that remained and did partake of it he saith 1. That he will drink of the fruit of the Vine with them new in the Kingdom of his Father which he neither did after his Resurrection nor will do with Judas 2. It s said they went into the Mount of Olives but so did not Judas 3. He saith all ye shall be offended because of me this night But Judas was none of those All. And Mark doth punctually agree with Matthew And Joh. 13. doth clear both the other For ver 30. he saith that Judas having received the Sop went immediately out Now it is utterly improbable that this Sop was after the Sacrament Though it be controverted whether the meat which they then eat besides the Paschal Lamb were before it or after it yet there 's evidence enough that it was before the Sacrament I know a Reverend Divine of ours in his Harmony of the Evangelists thinks that the Supper Ioh. 13. was not the same with that Mat. 26. and Mar. 14. When the Sacrament was instituted But his Reasons seem not cogent to me but may well be answered and there seems to be much evidence of the contrary in the Text to say nothing of the singularity of this exposition And as for the coincident controversies whether Christ did eat a Supper without the Paschal Lamb at the Institution of his Sacrament as Grotius thought or whether he did eat the Paschal Lamb a day before the Jews as Causabone Scaliger Capellus c. think Or on the same day with the Jews as Baronius Tolet Clopenburgius and the said Reverend Doctor think I shall not need on this occasion to enquire especially so much being written on it already See Paul Burgens in Lyr. and what Iansenius