of that will say that wicked men may come to Baptism for these advantages But the most Learned of them conclude that no man ought to come that hath not a purpose to forsake all his mortal sins at least and that they are not to be Baptized that profess not this and that others get into the Church praeter intentionem Ecclesiae as Bellarmine saith so that in this the chief of their Doctors own the cause that I maintain Aquin. 3. Qu. 68. ar 4. doth purposely dispute it Vtrùm peccatores sint Baptizandi And resolves it negatively that though Peccator quoad reatum may be Baptized yet not Peccator ex voluntate peccandi proposito persistendi in peccato he gives three good Reasons 1. Because such are unmeet to be incorporated into Christ which Baptism doth 2. Because Baptism with them cannot attain its end to take away their sin and in the works of God and the Church nothing must be done in vain or that cannot reach the appointed end 3. Because else there would be falshood in the sacramental signs which must not be And one would think by his Answers ad 2 m 3 m that he saith as much as I is for the necessity of a fides formata and Conversion it self before Baptism Saith he ad 2. Ideo sacramentum baptismi non est exhibiendum nisi ei in quo interioris conversionis aliquod signum apparet sicut nec medicina corporalis adhibetur infirmo nisi in eo aliquis motua vitalis nature appareat And ad 3 m answering those objectors that I intended p. 51. he saith Dicendum quod Baptismus est fidei sacramentum Fides autem informis non sufficit ad salutem nec ipsa est fundamentum sed sola fides formata quae per dilectionem operatur ut Aug. l. de sid oper Vnde nec sacramentum baptismi salutem conferre potest cum voluntate peccandi quae fidei formam excludit Non est autem per impressionem Characteris baptismalis aliquis disponendus ad gratiam quamdiu in eo apparet voluntas peccandi he here plainly speaks de fide formata ut afferendâ and not ut recipiendâ per baptismum So that he is here fully for me in the main cause of these Disputations and so must they all that do affirm a true death to sin to be one of the prerequisites if they will not contradict themselves and that 's common For it 's a vain conceit that preparatory grace kills sin and special grace afterward giveth a new life that which expelleth death is life and that which expelleth darkness is nothing else but the light it self Add also what Aquinas saith sup Qu. 2. a. 3. c. Nullum peccatum dimittitur nisi quis justificetur sed ad justificationem requiritur contritio And what he saith 3. Qu. 49. a. 1. ad 2 m Per fidem applicatur nobis passio Christi ad percipiendum fructum ipsius Fides autem per quam à peccato mundamur non est fides informis quae potest esse etiam cum peccato sed est fides formata per Charitatem ut sic passio Christi nobis applicetur non solùm quantum ad intellectum sed etiam quantum ad effectum Yet I know they here confound themselves by their sophistry telling us that Contrition is before Charity materially and after it effectively and that Contritio se habet ut ultima dispositio ad gratiam consequendam and that Poenitentia quae est sacramentum is before Poenitentia qâ—â— est virtus and is the instrument of effecting it as though a dissembling Ceremony or false profession would work grace so that there is no hold of them at the best for they have lost themselves in contradictions I know also that they make the Sacrament of Baptism to justifie and sanctifie infallibly all Infants that are offered by the Church on their allowed Titles let the Parent be never so bad because they think the Churches Faith may serve instead of the Parents as the Churches Intention may serve instead both of the Ministers saith Aquinas and the Infants yea and the Church it self need not lend an Infant any Contrition for they are agreed that neither other mens sins nor our own Original sin which is all that the Infant hath are the Object of Contrition but only our own actual sin Yet one would think that the ordinary doctrine that the votum vel propositum may save without Baptism should imply that before Baptism the desires of it are supposed to have Charity or special Grace The Roman Catechism saith Par. 2. pag. 142. Baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium malae acta vitae pâ—enitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam justitiam si repentinus aliquis Casus impediat quò minùs solutari aquâ ablui possint And they confess that none can be saved without Charity therefore those that die before Baptism must be supposed to have Charity But ordinarily they make Attrition sufficient and by the Sacrament give to the attrite justification and so Charity is conferred And thus by an outward act a man that hath but common grace may get special grace Yea if they Counterfeit Attrition it self yet they receive the foresaid indelible Character which gives them the jura Ecclesiae and as the Roman Catechism saith Par. 2. qu. 19. pag. 125. by this Character ad alia sacramenta percipienda redduntur idonei And then the other Sacraments at least by the help of Attrition will sure justifie and save them And thus they make a common grace sufficient to let them into the Church by Baptism yea the meer Baptism it self without any grace at all and so make their Character and Church-state the way to justification which is the thing I charge them with Pag. 50 51. And those that do seem exceedingly to comfort and encourage their proselytes by telling them of the certain efficacy of the Sacraments and that they surely put away all sin and guilt open heaven to them so that one would think there were assurance of Salvation or exceeding comfort reached forth yet they take it all away again and do but Tantalize and delude the people For they that with us require Contrition before the Sacrament do withall tell us that no man can know by any ordinary means but only by Revelation whether he be Contrite or not and consequently whether he shall be justified pardoned or saved ever the more for all the Sacraments And those that take up with Attrition do both confound themselves and their followers with their many degrees of Attrition and quarrels about it and also assure them that they cannot know whether they have the necessary degree and so after all Sacraments they cannot tell whether they be justified This much I thought meet to add for further explication of the Papists doctrine and the state of our Controversies with them herein Which I shall conclude in the words
as to their more profitable use of Ordinances but make no other conditions of their Right then God hath made 4. It is onely a Profession that 's serious voluntrary not contradicted prevalently by word or life which you must take as is before described And do you take it to be so unreasonable a matter to believe a man fide humana who speak's of his own heart which another cannot see when you can bring no evidence to disprove his words If you know any thing by his life that certainly proves his Profession false admonish him of it in the order that Christ hath directed you to till he either hear the Church or be rejected by the Church or at least by not hearing the Church do give you cause to take him as a Heathen or Publican but be not so much against the Scripture and 2. All discipline that ever the Church hath used And against common justice and reason as to do this by men on your own private judgement without evidence and a just tryal and once hearing them speak for themselves and many do that will unchurch a whole Parish and gather a new one on supposition of the invalidity of a bare Profession and on supposition that most are ignorant and ungodly before they have ever once accused them particularly or dealt with or excluded any of them in the way that Christ appointeth If I certainly knew that in this Parish there were 4000 unregenerate Persons and not 400 or 100 truly regenerate and yet knew not particularly which the unregenerate Persons were I ought not to cast out one man from the Church upon any such account Object But with what comfort can the Godly have communion with the societies that are so mixt with multitudes of the ungodly Answ. If they do not their duty in admoishing the offenders and labouring to heal the diseased members and to reform the Church in Christs appointed way Mat. 18.17 Then you may well ask With what comfort can such Professors live in the sinful neglect of their own duty But if they faithfully do their own part how should the sins of others â—e their burden unless by way of common compassion And how have Gods servant in all ages of the Church to this day received comfort in such mixt Communion These Objectors shew that they seek more of their comfort in men then is meet or that they discomfort themselves with their own fancies when they have no cause of discomfort given them from without but what must be born to the end of the world by al that wil walk in the waies of Christ. Object But it is the Communion of Saints that we believe and must endeavour Answ. True internal spiritual Communion with hearty Saints and External communion with professed Saints For real Saints in heart are unknown to us Ob. But the greater part do not so much as Profess to be Saints Answ. They that profess to believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and to renounce the world the Flesh and the Devil do profess to be Saints so do they that profess to repent of all sin and to be willing to live according to the word of God But I meet but with very few that will not profess all this Object They will say these words indeed but in the mean time they will scorn at godliness or disclaim it by their lives Answ. Those that do so must be dealt with in Christs way as Church-members till either they hear the Church or be rejected for their impenitency but you must not dare upon this account to unchurch whole Parishes nor ordinarily any one Person that hath not been dealt with in the order that Christ hath appointed To conclude this Disputation I find that the two things before mentioned are great occasions of the proneness of many godly people to schism The one is because they do not understand that Christ hath so contrived in it the Gospel that every man shall be either the Introducter of himself by Profession or the Excluder of himself by the rejection of Christianity And so that all Church admissions or rejections shall be but the consequents of his own choice that the chief comfort or the blame may be upon himself And this is partly from the admirable freedom and extensiveness of Gospel Grace which the sons of Grace should glorifie and rejoyce in and not murmur at and dishonour and partly from the wise dispensations of our Legislator that he may deal with men on clear grounds in their absolution or condemnation before all the world 2. The other cause of the schismatical inclination of some godly people is the great mistake of too many in confining all the fruits of Christs death and the mercies or graces of God to the Elect and so not considering the difference that there ever was and will be between the visible Church of Professors and the invisible Church of true Believers Alas Brethren in the name of Christ let me speak it to your hearts do you grudge a few common Priviledges to common Professors when you have the best and choysest part your selves you have Christ himself and do you grudg them the name of Christians or the bare symbole or signs of his body and blood You have sincerity of faith and Repentance and answerably you have true Remission and Reconciliation They have the profession of Faith and Repentance and do you grudg them the empty signs of a Remission which they have lost by their hypocrisie and Unbelief You have Inward communion with Christ in the Spirit as you have Inward faith Do you grudg an Externâ—l communion with the Church to them that have the External profession of Faith O Remember that the Net of the Gospel bringeth good and bad to the shore and the tares must grow with the wheat till harvest and then is the time that you shall have your desire The second Disputation Quest. 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 IT may seem strange that after 1625. years use of Christian Baptism the Ministers of the Gospel should be yet unresolved to whom it doth belong yet so it is And I observe that it is a Question that they are now very solicitous about And I cannot blame them it being not only about a matter of Divine appointment but a practical of such concernment to the Church I shall upon this present occasion give you my thoughts of it as briefly as I can which contain nothing that I know of which is new or singular but the Explication and Vindication of the commonly received truth We here suppose that Baptism is still a needfull Ordinance of Christ and that Infants are to be Baptized and that Ministers are the persons that should Baptize them so that it is none of our work at this time either to defend the Ordinance it self against the Seekers nor the
actually upon our acceptance And I should hope that few Protestants think that our actual Justification and Adoption our Interest in God Christ and the Holy Ghost are suspended upon any future condition which in our covenanting with God we must promise to perform I think I have made it plain now that our Heart covenanting with God is principally our present consent that Christ and Life shall be ours God Christ and the Holy Ghost ours and that this is nothing else but Justifying faith and therefore that they are all one and therefore the Profession of each of them is all one and so that where one is required the other is so being indeed not another Argum. 5. We must not baptize any without the profession of that faith and Repentance which are made the condition of Remission of sins But only the faith called justifying or saving and the concomitant true Repentance are made the condition of Remission of sins therefore we must baptize none without the profession of that justifying faith c. The Minor needeth no proof And the Major I prove thus If we must not baptize any but intentionally for present Remission of sin then must we not baptize any without a profession of that faith and Repentance which is the condition of Remission But the former is true therefore so is the later The consequence is past all doubt for else we should Imagine that men may have present Actual pardon without that Faith and Repentance which are the condition of it which subverteth much of the Gospel The Antecedent I prove thus If God hath Instituted no Baptism but what is Intentionally for the present Remission of sin then we must not baptize any but Intentionally for the present Remission of sin But the former is true therefore so is the later I say intentionally in contradistinction from Eventually or certainly and Infallibly attaining that end Where further note That I speak not of Gods absolute Decrees as if his Intention in that sense could be frustrate but of his ends as Legislator speaking of him after the manner of men but principally of the Instituted ends of his Ordinances that is the Ends which he requireth the Minister and people to use them for and so it is Our Intention principally that I mention As the Gospel it self is said to be Intentionally to save men and though it condemn most that is besides the first Intention and but by Accident And though this be principally to be spoken of the prescribed imposed Intentions of their Conversion and Salvation yet Christ is pleased in the Word to ascribe such Intentions to himself as attain not their ends as professing that he came not into the world to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved that is To condemn them is not his direct principal Intent but only on supposition of their willfull final rejecting of him And this he speakes partly in the habit of a Rector or Promiser and partly as man or after the manner of men And of the intention imposed on us there is no doubt Now I shall prove the Antecedent for the consequence is past doubt And first we are confirmed in this truth because the Opponent whom it concerneth hath not proved any other Baptism instituted by God but what is for present Remission of sins If they can shew us one Text of Scripture that speaketh of any other we shall give up all the Cause but yet they have not done it that I know of In the mean time we shall prove the contrary God hath instituted but One Baptism that one Baptism is for the present Remission of sins therefore God hath instituted no Baptism but what is for present Remission The Major is proved from Eph. 4.5 There is one Baptism In the Minor we take the words for Remission not to speak of somewhat accidental or to be intended only by the Administrator uncertainly or but sometime And I prove it from Scripture Acts 2.38 Repent and be Baptized every one of you in in the name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of sins and ye shall Receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost As Remission is here made the end of Baptism so it is present Remission For. 1. It is such as is the consequent of the Repentance which Peter exhorteth them to but that was present Remission 2. It was to precede the giving of the Holy Ghost in the sense there mentioned therefore it was present Remission The great Reasons that are brought to the contrary I shall answer afterwards and more fully then prove the vanity and foul consequents of their opinion that make a future Remission to be the intended end of our Administration of Baptism and therefore I must desire the Reader to suspend his expectations of my further Reasons à Natura rei till their due place Beza in loc saith in nomen Christi id est dans Christo nomen cujus mortis sepulturae ac resurrectionis simus in Baptismo participes cum peccatorum Remissione Nec enim hoc declarat formulam Baptismi sed finem scopum So Deodate In the name viz. Not only for a Mark of our Profession of the Gospel but also to participate of his spiritual vertue in the washing away of your sins with which he accompanieth and ratifyeth the external Ceremony in those who are his Bullinger in loc saith Baptizari in nomine Domini Jesu Christi est Baptismatis signo testari se Christo credere ad Remissionem peccatorum 1. Mark it is not only an engagement to Believe hereafter but the Profession of a present Faith 2. And that not a common faith but that which hath Remission of sin 3. And this was not an accidental separable use of Baptism but he makes this the very exposition of Baptizari in nomine Jesu Christi And next addeth Vel est in Baptismo per Christum recipi in gratiam Mark then that even Baptism into the name of Christ it self doth signifie that we are received into Gods favor by Christ And thus he expoundeth the Covenant in the next words Est enim Baptismus pactum seu foedus gratiae quod init inter baptizandum nobiscum Christus And that it is a Professing sign of our true Repentance he shews before Et rectissimè conjungitur Poenitentia Baptismus quia Baptismus Poenitentiae signum est Marlorate in loc goes further and shews that Remission doth in order go before Baptism and multitudes of our Divines say the like as may be seen in the abundant citations of them by Mr. Gataker against Doctor Ward and Bishop Davenant Tametsi in contexu verborum Baptismus Remissionem hìc praecedit ordine tamen sequitur quia nihil aliud est Mark nihil aliud quà m bonorum quae per Christum consequimur obsignatio ut in conscientiis nostris data sint The words are Calvins in loc owned by Marlorate The same Cal. in loc to shew that Remission of sin goeth before baptism
be answerable to God if we should minister Baptism to a man whose works and words do manifestly declare him to be an unregenerated unconverted person And if we may not initiate such a one how shall we bring him to the Lords Table The fifteenth Argument is If Baptism even of the aged must Necessarily precede the Lords Supper then this is not a converting Ordinance But c. The reason of the consequence is because true Repentance and faith are professed and Remission of sin sealed in Baptism Mr. Blake denieth the consequence because all the Baptized are not Regenerate Rep. But all the Adult Baptized according to Christs Institution are Regenerate of Infants it s yet under debate And if any be not so it is they that erroneously seek that which they should not have sought The last Argument there mentioned by Mr. Blake is from the Parable of the Prodigal who returned before he had the Robe Ring Shoos Fatted-calf c. Mr. Blake answereth that All Ordinances are to bring a Prodigal to such a returning posture which is a meer begging the question and not answering the Text which Interpreters usually thus expound The next Argument is pag. 245. recited From the Directory where the Ignorant scandalous and prophane that live in any sin or offence against their conscience are warned not to presume to come nigh that holy table He answers it is meant of those that purposely resolve to hold their sin and doubtless that purpose standing here is no comfort to be put into their hands As Mat. 5.23 24. Sacraments will not be accepted from that hand where malice is seated in the heart and implacably continued but it follows nâ—t but that where the soul is startled and such resolutions for sin do not appear this may be a means c. Repl. 1. You add your own corrupting gloss to the Directory They say warn them to forbear that live in sin against conscience You add the meaning is if they resolve to continue in it And I pray you why will you turn us to mens resolutions which is a secret of their hearts for a discovery of those whom we must refuse Is there the vilest Murtherer or Adulterer that is not purposed to leave it before he dies 2. But what if he resolve not to continue it Is it not bad enough if he will not resolve to leave it Doubtles this shews Impenitency and the other can do no more 3 But yet you have here destroyed all your Cause in a word For you have here excluded all unregenerate men for all the unregenerate are habitually resolved in most heinous sin and that against conscience They all will confess that God is better then the world and yet they all esteem the world before God and love it better than God they are a habitually resolved to please their Flesh before God and look to their worldly felicity before his Glory I have your consent therefore on this ground to conclude that a Sacrament will not be accepted at their hands 4. But do you not contradict this when you add yet if such Resolutions do not appear c. What if they appear not I hats something to the Minister but that 's nothing to prove Gods acceptance or the mans Title to claim the Sacrament Should not secret sin deterr aswell as open God and himself know them though we do not The 18th Argument Mr. Blake overpassing answers the 19th which is It is not communicable to any but the penitent therefore not a converting Ordinance or That Ordinance that is not communicable to any but the penitent is not converting But c. Mr. Blake denieth the Major to be true unless limited and giveth an instance Reproof is for Conversion yet not to all all converting Ordinances are not promiscuously to be applyed to all Repl. An unanswerable Argument and a meer impertinent Answer Is it not a wonder how the Major could be denied without distinguishing of Penitence and saying that the Sacrament is communicable to the impenitent as to saving Repentance but not as to common Repentance and therefore may convert to saving Repentance But he answer as if the Major had been this That Ordâ—nance which is for conversion is for all when it 's contrarily That which is for the converted only is not to convert So that Mr. Blake saith nothing at all to the Argument when he pretendeth to deny the Major which taken of sound Repentance is as undeniable as that The Medicine that is only for the living is not to make the dead alive so the Ordinance which is only for the Penitents is not to convert men to repentance To which he answers by saying that Converting ordinances are not to be promiscuously applyed What 's that to the Major or Argument The Pope dwelleth not at Rome because the Turk dwelleth at Constantinople So much for these Arguments and their Answers the rest I shall pass over which Mr. Blake hath about Sacraments being converting Ordinances Only telling him that I confidently deny his great Assertion pag. 241. the unconverted have a fundamental proper right to the Lords Supper and yet do not find my self in any inextâ—icable snares nor will by difficulties be frighted to that opniion I shall only here add in a word what I yeild about the Sacrament being a converting Ordinaâ—ce viz. 1. Some that have no Right to partake of it may possibly be converted by looking on and hearing the adjoined word 2. It s not impossible that he that sinfully and without title comes to receive it may occasionally receive good by it There is that there declared that hath a tendency to do good 3. But whatever it may be a means of beyond Divine Appointment through his meer good pleasure yet it is not Appointed to be demanded or taken by any Impenitent unconverted man for his Conversion 4 Yet if a Minister know them not to be impenitent but yet suspecteth it as he must give it them upon their profession so he may desire in the managing of the work that it may be converting to them if they are not converted that is that God will bring that truth to the heart which the signs represent to the eyes and make it an occasion of good to them that are out of their way in demanding it 5. Yet it is rather the Hearing and Seeing than the Taking Eating and Drinking that we may with any encouragement pray for this Blessing on 6. I never know or heard of any converted by the Receiving of the Sacrament but divers I have know converted by the occasion of it As some that by other kind of Doctrine than Mr. Blakes having been brought to apprehend the danger of unworthy receiving have been awakened so in their preparations for fear of eating damnation to themselves that it was a means of their conversion And some that by after-fears least then did eat unworthily And perhaps some by the serious speeches of the Minister in
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
the Gift of the Holy Ghost to it as to Infants And yet as long as they put all duly baptized both Infants and Adult into a state of salvation it matters not as to our question whether Infants had habitual Grace And yet Mr. Graker hath brought so many proofs out of the mounments of Antiquity even for this also that the Fathers uno ore took all the Baptized to be regenerate or renewed by inherent grace that when his Amanuensis had transcribed them he fâ—und them near four times as big as his whole Book besides and the very naming of the Auâ—hors and Books and Pages takes up near ten or eleven Pages Stâ—iâ—tur in Davenaâ—â— Epist. pa. 53. to the end of 63. He begins with Justin â—arry Irenaeu c. I will not so much as trouble the Râ—ader to name the Authors seeing he may there have them with the places together And lest Mâ— Blake should say that it is but common sanctification which they assert he may there see the placeâ— qâ—oâ—ed where â—hey aâ—cribe to all the dulâ— baptized peccatorum remissionem mentis illumiâ—ationem vâ—ii sordiumque ablutionem expurgationem animae purgationem purificatinem emaculationem totius hominis verant integram Circumcisionem refectionem renovationem recreatioâ—eÌ„â—nnovâ—tionem animâ—tionem emundationem sanctificationem internam reformationeÌ„ ad divinaÌ„ imagineÌ„ similitudineÌ„ restitutioneÌ„ regenerationeÌ„ geâ—erationis nativae correctioâ—eÌ„ acâ—reparationeÌ„ veteriâ— hominis mortem sepulturam noviâ—nativitatem vetustatis abstersionem exutum despoliatioâ—em dâ—positionem vitii omnis evomitionem peccati interfectionem criminum mortem sepulturam viâ—tutis vitam Spiritus sancti infusionem gratiae coelestis consecutionem hominis mentis immutationem in melius transformationem Hinc Baptismum appellant Vndam genitalem aquam salutarem rorem purificum sanativum vivificum sanctificumq lavacrum Et Sacramentum hoc asserunt peccatis exuere peccata expurgare spiritualem lepram auferre gratiae ac virtutum Spiritus sancti donis atque primitiis induere vim generativam habere Dei siitos generare corpus peccuti destruere vertutem vitalem indere gratiam spiritualem conferre atque infundere divinam imaginem instaurare novam facere massam condere creaturam dealbare nive candidiorem facere purum justum sanctum novum facere hominem peccatum radicitus evellere justitiam sanctitamque tribuere animae sordes maculasque abluere ulcera morbosque sanare aestus sedare febres extinguere putredines exuere vitia exinanire oculos aperire aures reserare vigorem dare vires addere formam floremq Deo dignum conciliare in vitam primordialem animam restituere textum novum contexere animas reparare viventes spiritu informatas utì aqua olim reptilia producere esse baptizâ— to quod matrix Embryoni eo modo effigiare quo infans in utero essingitur pari modo ex aqua resingere reficere quo ex terra primó fingebatur refundere refingere prout statua solet tingere ut lanum purpurâ purgare emollire fulgidum facere ut ignis ferrum charactereÌ„ effigiemque imprâ—mereâ—ut cerae sigillum vitium solvere absumere peccata exurere ut ignis ceram homineÌ„ terreum ut terraÌ„ metallicaÌ„ in auruÌ„ transmutare crassos animales in coelestes spirituales transformare infantiam juventutem revocare puritati originali restituere vel eâ etiam praestantiorem splendidiorem reddere Typos baptismatis affirmant fuisse Naaminis purgationem Pharaonis submersionem Cataclysum Noathicum piscinaÌ„ BethesdicaÌ„ aquatilium creationem formationem protoplasti I have recited all these terms Mr. Gataker telleth you where to find them all least Mr. Blake should not be able to find any one that certainly signifieth saving Grace if we named not all For though he abhorreth to impute equivocation to the Scripture as I do yet he sticks not to do it much more where it serveth his turn Regeneration Renovation Adoption Sanctification Disciples and I doubt Justification and what not are all equivocal terms with him in Scripture if I can understand him and so is the Church the body of Christ and many such like Perhaps therefore it will not move him that Mr. Gataker nexe addeth pag. 63. De baptismo denique exponunt illas sacras Scripturea Periochas Psal. 34.5 juxta Graec. Ver. Psal. 103.5 Isa. 1.16 Ezek. 36.25 26. Psal. 51.10 Joh. 1.13 3.5 6. Rom. 6.3 6. 1 Cor. 6.11 Gal. 3.27 Ephe. 4.22 24. 5.26 Col. 2.11 13. Tit. 3.5 Heb. 6 4 10.22 Quae loca IlluminationeÌ„ purificationem renascentiam regenerationem refectionem sanctificationem mortificationem vivisicationem cordis renovationem imaginis restaurationem spiritus infusionem hominem veterem exutum crucifixum abolitum hominem novum Christum ipsum indutum loquuntur nec aut ad solam reatus amotionem possunt accommodari aut de ea sola saltem ab ullo opinor unquam interprete sunt exposita Constat itaque Patres antiquos tam Regenerationem propriè dictam quae in hominis renovatione interná consistit quà m peccati sive originalis sive actualis remissionem sacramento isti tribuisse Constat ex iis quae suprà indicavimus aevi itideÌ„ inferioris Scriptores plerosque cùm in eadem sententia fuisse tum in candeÌ„ menteÌ„ patruÌ„ priscorum dicta cepisse So far Gataker If all these terms be equivocal and none of them signifying saving Grace we must even give up the use or certainty of Language But it may possibly be Objected that this was the Fathers error who ascribed too much to Baptism Answ. What ever they did in that it proveth the point in hand and sheweth us what persons the baptized and the visible Church were taken for by the Fathers Object But doth it not rather shew that saving Faith was not presupposed because they supposed that Baptism did give the spirit and sanctification and therefore found not men sanctified before Answ. 1. It is undeniable that they took all that were duly baptized to be presently in a state of salvation without any delay and therefore they did not take Baptism as a common Ordinance to lead men up to the use of other Church Ordinances as the Supper c. which is also common to the notoriously ungodly and so to saving grace 2. And if the â—atholike Church hath in all ages thus annexed saving Grace to Baptism and made any common faith the condition qualifying the person for this Baptism then it would be plain that they all affixed saving Grace to the preparation of common Grace and so the Catholike Church hath been Pelagian which he that shall affirm will do that for the Pelagian Cause which will better please the Jesuites than any considerate Reformed Divines It is therefore not to be doubted oâ— but that it was some Antecedent special Grace to which they thus confidently affixed other saving Grace Which will the more appear in that Austine himself and those that followed him against the
arguing why may not you say that the child of every Turk and Indian on earth hath Right for their Parents did no more divest them of it than these and their sins can no more be transmitted But though it be not necessary to be asserted to the upholding of the present Cause yet I must tell you that I believe that Parents transmit more of their sin than of their Graces to Posterity and I am somewhat confident that you say what you can never prove and deny a Guilt which it better beseemed you to acknowledge and lament Next to the proof of the Minor of the main Argument viz. that notoriously ungodly persons are excommunicated from the society of Christians as such ipso Jure or are to be pronounced no members of the Universal Church To be excommunicate ipso Jure is when the Law is so express and so fully applyeth it self to the case of the offending person that there may or must be an execution of it by the people though there do no sentence of the Judge intervene when the plainness of the Law and the notoriousness of the Case may warrant an execution without Judgement And that it is so here I prove thus The Case is supposed Notorious and the Law is plain and commandeth all men to execute it whether there be any Judgement or not Therefore such are ipso Jure excommunicate 1. In a lower sort of Excommunication the meer Law may require our execution without a sentence therefore much more in a grosser and plainer case We must not eat with the scandalous 1. Cor. 5.11 We must avoid them that cause Division Rom. 16.17 We must note such men as are disobedient and have no company with them that they may be ashamed yea we are flatly commanded in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that we withdraw our selves from every brother that walketh disorderly 2 Thes. 3.6 14. All this we must do though no Ecclesiastical Judge do sentence them when the case is notorious We must reject a known Heretick after the first and second admonition we must turn away from wicked Livers though they have a form of Godliness 2 Tim. 3 5. 2. Concerning those that are not Christians we are bid come out from among them and separate our selves and touch no unclean thing 2 Cor. 6.17 18 For what communion hath Light with darkness and Christ with Belial or a Believer with an Infidel ver 14. we have the estates of Infidels Apostates and ungodly men described to us and we must judge them to be as they undoubtedly appear to be and use them accordingly John bids a woman that If any come to them and bring not this doctrine receive him not into your house neither bid him God speed for he that bideth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds Here is an Excommunication ipso Jure for he doth not name the persons but leave them to discern them and execute according to evidence And these seem to be persons much in the case as now we have to do with such as professed themselves Christians in name and yet denied the fundamentals and lived wickedly v. 7.8 9. of Ep. 2. Mary deceivers are entered into the World who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh This is a very Deceiver and Antichrist whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God whether this was written to a Lady or a Church whether of the Gnosticks or other Sect it differs not much as to our case Also God calls all his people whom it did concern to come out of Babylon that they pertake not of her sins receive not of her plagues Rev. 18.4 But I need not prove I hope that we are not of the same body with known unbelievers and that unbelieving expresseth as small if not a smaller evil than ungodliness and is comprehended in it I have already manifested And it s known that we are to shun the company of a wicked man that will take on him the name of a Christian Brother more then of an unbeliever that pretendeth not to be one of us For with the later we may eat 1 Cor. 10 27. though we may not communicate with him in his false worship ver 16.17 18 20 21. but with the former we may not And whether the ungodly be any more of our Body or fit for our communion than Infidels that so profess themselves in words let Scripture judge When God separateth his own People from others it is not only as from unbelevers but he most freqently giveth the reason from their Pollutions so that it is from them as from the unclean Lev. 20 24. I am the Lord your God which have separated you from other People Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean c. which I have separated from you as unclean And ye shall be holy unto me for I the Lord am holy and have severed you from other People that ye should be mine So answerable hereunto all Gods People under the Gospel are called Saints as well as Believers and Paul tels all the Corinthians not only that they are changed from Infidelity to Faith but such were some of you that is wicked Livers but ye are washed ye are sanctified ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God 1 Cor. 6 11. And he is blinde that seeth not how in all the ceremonial Institutions of Moses which were Types of Christs cleansing his Church the Lord doth most eminently declare his Purity and hatred of sin and the necessity of Holiness and Purity in his People as well as the necessity of pardon by Christ Answerable whereunto in the Gospel Christ is as eminently declared the sanctifier as the Pardoner of men He saveth his people from their sins themselves and washeth and sanctifieth and cleanseth his Church that he may present it spotless to God Lev. 15.31 12.2 3 5 c. Neh. 13.3 9.2 10.28 Ezr. 6.21 Exod. 33.16 Lev. 5.2 11. throughout 13. 14. Num. 19. Isa. 52.1 the Gospel-Church is accordingly described Put on thy beautiful Garments O Jerusalem the holy City for henceforth then shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and unclean Ezek. 22.26 Her Priests have violated my Law and profaned my holy things they have put no difference between the Holy and Profane neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean Ezek. 44.23 Jer. 15.19 If thou wilt take forth the pretious from the vile thou shalt be as my mouth let them return to thee but return not thou to them Eph. 5.5 2 Cor. 12.21 Ezek. 36.29 I think it is clear that those whom Paul describeth 2 Tim. 3. are to be avoided by all Christians as not in the Christian body and he describeth them by their unholiness and particular vices and saith of their Teachers that they are Men of corrupt minds reprobate concerning the faith
and of no great ill repute it is possible for a godly man to be long guilty of them as it is known that many well reputed of for Godliness are in Scotland Reputation doth much with many even that are Godly to make sin seem great or small with us now a Swearer is reputed so great a sinner that he is reckoned with Adulterers and Drunkards but Censoriousness Backbiting Church-division disobeying those that rule over us in the Lord spiritual Pride c. that are greater then some swearing do not so brand a man nor make him odious with us But God judgeth not of sin thus by the custom of Countries but according to the nature of the thing In England a Sabbath-breaker is taken for a sin inconsistent with Grace In the Low-Countries Helvetia France and most other of the Reformed Churches much of it taken for no sin at all but we are censured for superstitious herein Every one is not ungodly there that lives and dies in that sin without particular Repentance Men that have not heard much of the evil of some petty oaths may not understand the evil of them and custom may do much And it is not inconsiderable as to the extenuation of some mens sin that it s not a little doubtfull whether it be indeed swearing if a man do use those words which are the ordinary matter of an oath and doth not know it to be an oath nor intend the form of an oath in it As if one use the terms of an oath in Latine or another Language which he understandeth not he is not formally a Swearer And if men do know it and yet do not at that time intend any such thing as a calling any creature to witness or appealing to them as sufficient to avenge a lye but only use a customarie term inobservantly it is a sin but whether formally swearing may be questioned But if it be the Name of God that they abuse in swearing or if they indeed put any creature in his stead appealing to it as the Avenger of a lye or perjurie that is a hainous sin and cannot easily be done in ignorance 2. It is judged by Divines that David lay a twelve moneth in his sin of Adulterie and Murder unrepented of Certain it is that he was long contriving and executing that horrid murder of Vriah that his own shame might be covered and he might enjoy his wife How long Asah or Solomon sinned we know not Nor can any man possibly determine just how long a man may live in the practice of such a sin and yet have true special Grace and a state of Justification Qu. 10. But what if they are Neglecters of Gods Worship as Prayer in their families or the keeping of the Sabbath or publike hearing the Word or godly discourse is it possible that in such there should be saving Grace They that love God will seek him in his Worship Answ. It is not enough for the certain knowledge of a mans ungodliness or gracelesness to know that he neglecteth this duty of outward worship unless it be known with what mind and on what reasons he neglecteth it For example Many a man neglecteth Prayer in his Family as supposing himself unable to perform it and that this alone is not a certain sign of gracelesness appeareth thus 1. God hath not said that all that neglect it are graceless or shall perish As for the Text of Jer. Pour out thy wrath on the Heathens thaâ— know thee not and the Families that call not on thy name It s past question that by Families is meant Tribes or Nations and calling on Gods name is put for Owning and Worshipping the true God without any mention of the special sort of prayer in a Familie though I believe the dueness of that may be hence gathered 2. Many that we have reason to hope are godly have of late years given over Familie prayer as supposing though very blindly that it is not a duty required by God 3. Many godly people do as much neglect Teaching their Families as some of these in question do Praying in their Families and yet it is more expresly commanded Deut. 6 11 c. And for the Observation of the Sabbath I answered before that most of the Godly in the Reformed Churches as far as I can learn by their Writings or by Report are against it in strictness And therfore I suppose that sin is consistent with godliness And for Godly Discourse I would no godly people were not so neglective of it that their company becomes too unprofitable thereby Some are much disabled to good discourse by natural impediments as Bashfulness c. want of words through ill Education and disuse may hinder much It is only those that privately live and converse with people that will be able to judge of them certainly on this account and not all such neither And Lastly For hearing the Word it will not alone make a certain discovery For 1. we know not what may keep a man away till we speak with him 2. It s possible for a godly man to be of the opinion of the Separatists that think it unlawful to hear our Ministers or in our Assemblies and having no other to joyn with may hear none at all as I have known it the case of some in the Bishops times So that the Certainty of Ungodliness is not discernable by this alone Quest. 11. But there are some that will scorn and deride or revile the Godly yea and persecute them where they have power Is not that a certain Note of one Graceless Answ. It is one thing to scorn or persecute a Godly man and another to scorn at Godliness Or it is one thing to persecute and scorn a man as he is Godly directly on that account and another thing to scorn and persecute him for something else as upon some personal falling out or for some sin or false opinion or the like cause The later can be no certain discovery of an Ungodly man Quest. 12. But what if they deride and persecute Godliness it self or a man because he is Godly Answ. It is certainly a heinous sin But we must distinguish between the deriding of a man for the Essentials of Christianity or for Godliness as such and deriding him for some doctrine or practice of Godliness which is not essential also between a known Truth and Duty and an unknown It is too possible for a Godly man to persecute and deride the Godly for some Truths which he took to be Errors or some Duties which he mistook to be Sins or to be no Duties or for the manner of some Duties which he took to be wrong Alas I how common is it for the Separatists and Anabaptists many of them to deride our Ministry Assembles and Duties and many among us to deride theirs And they are the bitterest taunts and persecutions that come from blinde zeal These times have by sad experience convinc't us that men seeming otherwise
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