not renounce the world flesh and the Dâ—vil oâ— that declareth certainly that he will not renounce thâ—m at that time But such are all notorious ungodly men Therefore the Church hath ever required this in Baptism Arg. 7. We may not baptize those whom we notoriously know to be at present uncapable of receiving remission of sins for that is the use of the Ordinance according to Gods institution But such are all the notoriously ungodly Therefore I need not here I suppose with those I deal with answâ—r the Antinomian's Objection from Rom. 4. of justifying the ungodly I have said enough to that against Lud. Colvinus and others Arg. 8. Men that be notoriously unfit for Marriage with Christ to be solemnized are unfit by us to be baptized or any for them But such are all the notoriously ungodly Ergo c. Arg. 9. We may not baptize those that we know do notoriously dissemble in making the Baptismal Covenant But such are all notoriously ungodly Ergo c. Arg. 10. We may not give him the Seal of the righteousness of Faith who notoriously declareth that he hath not that Righteousness But such are all notoriously ungodly Ergo c. Arg. 11. From Matth. 28.19 20. Before we baptize men or any for their sakes we must see in probability that they are made Disciple But so are not the notoriously ungodly Ergo c. Arg. 12. Those that we must Baptize or any for their sakes must seem to believe with all their hearts Acts 8.37 And to receive the word gladly Acts 2.38.39 41. And to believe with a saving faith Mark 16.15 16. Acts 16.31 â—2 33. But so do not any that are notoriously ungodly Ergo. These Texts and many such like are our Directory whom to Baptize Arg. 13. From 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your children unclean If one of the immediate Parents be not a Believer their children are unclean and consequently not to be baptized But notorious ungodly ones are not Believers Ergo As they must be Believers that they may have Right and be Holy so must they seem Believers that they may seem to have Right and so be baptized by us warrantably But such seem not to have Faith who are notorioâ—sly Ungodly It is Objected that this Text determineth of one way of Covenant-Right to Infants but doth not thereby deny all other Answ. 1. It is peremptory in the Negative Else were your children unclean as well as in the Affirmative but now are they Holy 2. It therefore excludeth expresly all other wayes of interest in the Covenant by Birth-Priviledge Else how could that Negative be true But I confess it doth not exclude all means else of an after acquisition or reception of Covenant-Right For he that is born unclean may become by purchase or contract the child of a Believer or at age may believe himself And then he ceaseth to be unclean 3. At least it seems yielded by thâ—m that if both Parents be unbelievers the child can have no Right Aâ— theirs or on theâ—r account It s Objected that this was true of the Corinthians whose Ancestors â—ere Infidels and themsâ—lves the first Converts their children were unclean if one of them were not a believer but it holdeth not of them that had pious Ancestors Answ. 1. This yieldeth the point which is now in question that is that On their Parents account such children have no right 2. It contradicteth the Apostle's express Affirmation who saith that they are unclean which can extend to no less than the denyal of Holiness by Bâ—rth-Priviledge 3. Noah was the Progenitor remote of those Corinthians and he was not unclean Yet that makes not them Holy Else no man shoul'd be unholy Arg. 14. Rom. 11. The Israelites and their children with them are broken off because of Unbelief Therefore Notorious Unbelievers and their children are to be judged as no Church-members nor to be baptized And that all Notorious Ungodly ones are Notorious Unbelievers I have proved and may yet refute the ordinary Objections to the contrary Arg. 15. We may not lawfully baptize those children for their Parents sake whose Parents are ipso jure Excommunicated from the society of Christians as such or are justly to be pronounced No Members of the Universal Church Visible or Invisible But all Notoriously Ungodly are in one of these ranks Ergo. To explain my meaning in this Argument Observe 1. that I take not the common doctrine for true that a particular Political or Organized Church or incorporated Society of Christians is a meer Homogeneal part of the universal Visible Church All the Universal Church doth not consist of such Societies no more than all this Common-wealth doth consist of Corporations For a particular Church is as a particular Body-Corporate and all the Members of the Universal are not so Though all ought to be so that can attain it yet all cannot attain it and all do not what they ought Even in an Army a Souldier may be lifted by a General Officer into the Army in general long before he is placed in any Regiment or Troop yea there are some that are Messengers and for other employments that are not to be of any Regiment So sometime a man is baptized as the Eunuch before he be entred into any particular Church perhaps long And some were of Churches which are dissolved and stay long before they can joyn themselves to others And some live as Merchants in a moveable travelling condition And some are bound for the good of the Common-wealth to be Embassadors or Agents or Factors c. resident among Infidels where is no Church And some may be called to preach up and down among Infidels for their conversion as the Apostles did and fix themselves to no particular Church And some may be too ignorant or neglective of their duty in incorporating with any And some upon infirmity and scrupulosity hold off So that its apparent that all the Visible Church is not thus Incorporated into particular Churches 2. I do firmly believe that Baptism as Baptism doth list enter or admit us only into the Universal Church directly and not into any particular Church but yet consequentially it oft doth both And as the Parent is so is it supposed that the Infant is If the Parent live an itinerant life and bring his child to Baptism that child is entered into the Universal Church only except he leave the child resident in any particular Church and desire it may be a member of it But if the Parent be a member of a particular Church when we Baptize his child we receive it first into the universal Church and then into that particular as an imperfect member For we justly suppose it is the Parents desire which is it that determineth this Case 3. I firmly believe that the common opinion is an Error that All that are cast out of a particular Church are cast out of the universal 4. Yea or that he that is put out of one particular
incorporated Church must be avoided by all other such Churches 5. Yet do I believe that it is a worse Error to say that all that are cast out of one such Church may be received into communion by other Churches or single Christians 6. I do therefore distinguish of such Exclusion as we commonly call Excommunication or casting out of Churches or suspending from communion 1. As to the ground and cause of the Exclusion 2. As to the Terminus ad quem or the in quantum or intended effect of the Exclusion 1. It is one thing to be excluded on a cause that is supposed exclusive of Christianity it self and another thing to be excluded on a cause that supposeth him uncapable of the Priviledge of all incorporated Churches and a third thing to be excluded on a cause that makes men uncapable of Member-ship with that one Church only or some particulars and not all 2. So as to the effect It is one thing to be excluded from the number of Christians as such Another thing to be excluded from all Incorporated Churches as such And a third thing to be excluded from one particular Church only or some more on the like ground that are in the like case Besides all this I distinguish between an Exclusion upon the certain Nullitie of the Title and a suspension while the Title is under tryall upon a just occasion of questioning it From hence I hold as followeth 1. That there may be just reason to cast a man out of a particular Church who yet is not denied to joyn with other particular Churches For example if a member of this particular Church hold me to be no true Minister and that he may not communicate with me supposing him to mistake or if he hold it his duty to contradict the Doctrine and Practice of Infant-Baptism or the like he may make himself utterly uncapable of communion with this Church who yet may be capable of communion with other Churches The like oft falls out where Churches differ about lesser Doctrines or Ceremonies or Ordination of Pastors a man that will in a troubling zeal suppose himself bound to be a continual disquiet to that Church where the occasion is may be cast out from that and uncapable of joyning with any of that same opinion and way and not with others that are of his own way and Opinion 2. A man may be cast out of a particular incorporated Church as such and consequently be at present uncapable of being a member of any such particular Church on Earth and yet not be cast out of the Universal Visible Church or number of Christians much less of the Invisible As for example If a man hold and maintain that there are no true Ministers in Office in any particular Church on earth by reason of an interruption in the succession of Ordination that man is become uncapable of being a member of any such Church and yet while he holdeth the whole Doctrine of Christianity besides and openly professeth it and supposeth that private gifted-men may Teach and Baptize he may still be a viâ—ible Christian and therefore not fit to be cut off from the Universal Church of Christians So in any the like Case Quer. Whether this be not the Case of those that place all Church-power in the Major vote of the people so that the Church must be governed only by such Vote and the Pastor is but the mouth of the People to act according to their Vote Whether men of this judgement declaring and professing it be capable of being members of any true incorporated Church on Earth though they may be members of such Societies as their own of humane invention contrary to the Word and to the very Essence of a true Political Church 3. I also distinguish between the excluding of a man from communion as No true Christian and excluding him as a scandalous or infectious Christian. As it was one thing for the Jews to remove the dead and another to remove a Leper from the camp And I suppose that 1. Ordinarily we are not to exclude any from our communion for a scandalous sin openly repented of 2. Yet it is possible that it may be of so hainous a nature that for the Credit of Religion and the avoiding of all occasion of Reproach by those without it is not meet to admit such an Offender into our communion till after some convenient time and larger manifestation of our disowning their crime and of their extraordinary repentance of it But this is but temporary 3. It is possible also that a man may have such an itching zeal to propagate a false opinion though consistent with Christianity that we may be bound to exclude him our actual communion to avoid the infection of the Church As also that his crime may so induce others to imitation that though it be consistent with Christianity we must exclude him as an infectious Leper because a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump 4. I conceive that an open Apostate needs no decisive sentential Excommunication but only declarative We cut off no man from Christ but declare who they be that cut off themselves from that Christianity which they seemed to have 5. Yet I conceive that an actual Apostate that is not totally an Infidel but renounceth only some parts of the essentials of Christianity and is loath to confess himself no Christian and will intrude into the communion of Christians whether to avoid shame or disquiet of conscience or danger c. I say such a One is the fittest object for the sentence of highest excommunication even from the number of Christians supposing him notoriously to be such As if a man should call himself a Christian and thrust into their communion and yet maintain that Christ is but a Prophet such as Mahomet or as the Arrians that he is not God or that there is no Resurrection or Life to come or that there is no Holy Ghost or that Christ is not to be obeyed when the Flesh is against it and that every man may live the life that best pleaseth his flesh or that he himself will obey his flesh before Christ or not let go his sin for the hopes of Glory at the command of God Among these I reckon a Notorious ungodly man who will in words call himself a Christian but by a more certain discovery make known that indeed he is none Here the Church is not only to declare him none but to sentence him none For a meer Declaration supposeth not a Controversie but a Sentence or Decision doth and his vain pretence and unjust intrusion made it a Controversie as between him and the Church though to the Church the Case be notorious This man then is cast out as No-Christian when I conceive that such a man as David Solomon c. were they now with us while they lay in that sin should be removed from actual communion as Lepers or scandalous Christians or at most as such as
their house yea or will not come to him considering he is made the Ruler over them in order to their spiritual good and they commanded to obey him Heb. 13.17 especially when a Ministers weakness or the multitude of his Parishioners and business will not permit him to seek after them I may conclude therefore that for all the word Dogmatical faith in the Title page this Gentleman is not like to be my Adversary To conclude the Jesuits themselves do witness that the Doctrin which I have in this Book maintained is the ordinary Protestant Doctrine while they concurr in opposing part of it under that title without our disowning it and tell the Iansenians that their Doctrine by which they make the Church to consist only of those that have charity and true Grace is the doctrine of the Protestants as Petavius de Lege Gratia passim p. 28. Auâ—â—enim unà cum charitate ac justitiâ necessario fidem amittebant quicunque lethale aliquod crimen incurrerant dut si fides in illis haerebat adhuc ea minimè suffiâ—iebat ut in Ecclesiae parte aliqua numerarentur Horum utrùm dÃxerint nihil ad haeresim Catholicae fidei â—abem interest Nam utrumque pro haeretico damnatum inter caetera Lutheri Calvinique ante hos Wiclefi nefaria dogmata jampridem Ecclesiasticâ censurâ notatum est Vid. p. 118. de Gratia initiali But it s in regard of the Catholick Church as invisible and in the properest acception that we own this to be our Doctrine As to the rest of Mr Blake's Book and also Dr Owen's Mr Roberts I have said as much as I now intend in the Conclusion of these Disputations If any Papists or other Adversaries shall conclude that we are not of the true Church or Religion because we thus differ and are of so many minds they may as well prove a man to be no member of an Hospital or no Patient to a Physitian because he is not in perfect health or none of the Scholars of such a Master because he knows not as much as his Teacher or as those of the highest form Or that Paul and Barnabas were not both of the true Church because they fell out even to a parting asunder Or that Peter Paul were not both of the true Religion because one of them was to be blamed and the other withstood him to the face because he walked not uprightly and according to the truth of the Gospel an high charge Gal. 1.11 12 13 14. yea they may as well conclude that no man is of the Church while he liveth on earth because while we are here we know but in part and see but darkly or enigmatically as in a glass 1 Cor. 13.9 11 12. and because we account not our selves perfect or to have attained but follow after and reach forth to the things which are before us and press toward the mark and where any is otherwise minded we wait till God reveal this to us Phil. 3.12 13 14 15. Or as if they would make us believe that there are not more differences among the Papists then with us But of these things I purposely speak in some Disputations against Popery which with this are in the Press And lastly for those that will convert the truths which I here maintain into the nourishment of divisions when their nature is to heal either making men Notoriously ungodly that are not and so rejecting them and their Children or withdrawing into separated Churches because such are Baptized or admitted to Communion of whose qualifications they are unsatisfied their guilt is upon themselves The doctrine is not made guilty by their abuse As the ignorant and unlearned have still wrested the Scripture to their own destruction so have the self-conceited and erroneous always misused the Truth it self to the disturbance of the Church It s matter of double Lamentation that yet there should be such Divisions and Parties and Distances when B p Hall's Peace-maker and Mr Burrough's Irenicum have been extant so long Were there but those two Books on that Subject extant in England they will heal or inexcusably condemn our distances And indeed they are Volumns of accusation against us proclaim the shame let me speak what must be spoken even of the Godly yea of the most of the Godly Ministers of these Nations that have yet done no more in this healing work And I intreat all those Ministers People that have time and any regard to my advice that they would diligently read over and over again those two books though they cast by twenty such as this for it And for those that will censure the following disputations as being not levelled to the inâ—erest of their several Parties I shall be no further solicitous to remove their offence And of the foresaid abusers of these reforming reconciling verities I now only crave the sober perusal conscionable Practice of Mr Burrough's 2d 3d 4th and 5th Propotion in in his Irenic Ch. 23 p 163. Had there been but that one healing Leaf or Page in England our wounds would be our shame as truly as they are our hurt and danger Mr Meade on Eccl. 5.1 pag 130 131. Offer not the Sacrifice of Fools for they know not that they do evil MY third Proposition was this That when Sacrifice was to be offered in case of sin yet even then God accepted not thereof primariò primarily and for it self as though any refreshment or emolument accrewed to him thereby as the Gentiles fondly supposed of their Gods but secondarily only as a testimony of the Conscience of the Offerer desiring with humble Repentance to glorifie him with a present by that rite to renew a Covenant with him For Sacrifice was Oblatio foederalis Now Almighty God renews a Covenant with or receiveth again into his favour none but the Repentant sinner and therefore accepts of Sacrifice in no other regard but as a token and effect of this Otherwise its is an abomination to him as whereby men professed a desire of being reconciled unto God when they had offended him and yet had no such meaning Hence God rejects all Sacrifices wherein there is no contrition nor purpose to forsake sin and keep his Commandments which are the parts of Repentance so is to be taken that Isa. 1. To what purpose is the multitude of your Sacrifices Bring no more vain Oblations Incense is an abomination to me And Isa. 62.2 3. And surely he that blesseth an Idol is so far from renewing a Covenant with the Lord his God that he breaks it so did they who without conscience of Repentance presumed to come before him with a Sacrifice not procure atonement but aggravate their breach According to one of these three senses are all passages in the Old Testament disparaging and rejecting all Sacrifices Literally to be understood namely when men preferred them before the greater things of the Law valued them out of their
by combinations of schoolmasters We confess also that the Church is but one as well as they that they are to make the same profession and use the same worship in regard of which they are called visible members and the Church a visible Church as by reason of their faith and the spirit within them it is called invisible as if we should distinguish a man into visible and invisible in respect to his body and soul which make not two men we confess also that there is an ineffectual faith of assent that goeth without a hearty consent and that many are to be admitted by us into the visible Church by Baptism by solemnization upon a bare Profession who have not faith either of one sort or other And we confess that such as so remain in the Church do live under those benefits and means which have a special tendence to their true conversion But yet we very much dâ—ffer in this The Papists make the Primary sense of the word Church to be of the visible Church as the samosius significatum and therefore they say that to be entred by Baptism 1. Into a Profession of assent 2. Into communion in Ordinances and 3. Under one and the same Government or external policy is all that is requisite to make a Church-member But we say that the first and famosius significatum is the whole multitude of true Believers that have the spirit of God and his saving Grace and that it is one and the same Church that is called first mystical as being called out of the world to Christ by true faith and then visible because of their Profession of that same faith and therefore if any Profess that faith who are without it these are members but secundum quid or equivocally as the hair and the nails are members of the body which indeed are no members in the proper and first sense or as a wooden leg is a member or as a body without a soul is a man or as the peas or chaff and straw are corn The body may be said to be part of the man when it is animated but a corps or body that never was animated is not properly a part the straw and chaff are called part of the corn-field though indeed but appurtenances to the corn but if there were no corn they should have no such title and when they are separable they shall lose it Moreover t is not a Profession of the same faith that the Papists and we maintain to be necessary to Church entrance For they require as necessary only a Profession of the Dogmatical or Historical faith of Assent aforesaid with a consent to subjection and use of Ordinances But we require a Profession of that faith which hath the promise of pardon and salvation They take their Church-entrance to be a step towards saving conversion and formed faith we take it quoad primam intentionâ—m Christi ordinantis to be an entrance among the number of the converted true Believers and that it is accidental through their failing and hypocrisie that any ungodly are in the Church and so enjoy it's external priviledges and that if we could know them to be such they should not be there it being the work of the Gathering Ministry to bring men to true faith and repentance and of the Edifying perfecting ministry to build them up and bring them on And the Papists themselves having received by Tradition a form of words to be used in Baptism which are sounder then their doctrine and which in the true sence do hold forth all that we say are put to their shifts by palpable mis-interpretation to deprave their own form They do themselves require of the Baptized a Profession that he believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost and when we prove that this is justifying faith and that to believe in doth signifie Affiance the Papists say it is but a naked Assent or Historical faith and when themselves require the â—aptized to â—enounce the Devil the world and the flesh they say that this signâ—fieth no more but that at present they profess so far to renouâ—ce them as to enter into the visible Church as the way to a future saving abâ—enunciation And when themselves do dedicate the person to Christ they say it is but directly to his Church that is to leave the world of Infidels and be numbred with the visible Church as the means to a saving sanctification And these notions they have filed and formed more exactly of late than heretofore to make the snare more apt to catch the simple still magnifying to the uttermost the visible Church-state as the only way to a state of justification and salvation But yet as our Divines have observed against him Bellarmine himself when he hath superficially pleaded his own cause doth frequently in the pleading it let fall such words at unawares that do destroy it and grant what we say As lib 3. de Eccles. cap. 10. he saith Verissime etiam dici potuisse ecclesiam fidelium id est eorum qui veram fidem habent in corde unam esse ecclesia enim praecipuè ex intentione sideles tantum colligit cum autem admâ—scentur aliqui ficti qui vere non credunt id accidit praeter intentionem ecclesiae Si enim eos nôsse posset nunquam admitteret aut casu admissos continuò excluderet yet I confess it is but his nudus ascensus or fides informis that he seemeth here too mean I pray you read over especially his 9. Chap. ibid. There pag. 227 he answereth one of our Objections thus Ad ultimum dico malos non esse membra viva Corporis Christi hoc significari illis scripturis Ad id quod addebatur igitur sunt aequivocè membra c. a multis solet concedi malos non esse membra vera nec simpliciter corporis ecclesiae sed tantum secundum quid aequivocè Ita Johan Turrecremata l. 1.57 ubi id probat ex Alex. de Ales Hugone D. Thoma idem etiam docent Petrus à Soto Melchior Canus aliiâ—qui tamen etsi dicant malos non esse meÌ„bra vera dicuÌ„t nihilominus verè esse in eeclesia sive in corpore ecclesiae esse simpliciter sideles sen Christianos neque enim solae meÌ„bra sunt in corpore sed etiam humores dentes pili alia quae non sunt membra Neque sideles aut Christiani dicuntur tales à charitate sed à side sive ù fidei profesâ—ione It appeareth then that the Papists are put of late to refine this fundamental doctrine of theirs from the soundness that it formerly had among themselves and to fit it more to their own turns And I blame them not because their whole kingdom lyeth on it and would be subverted utterly if the foresaid exposition hold which is so much like to ours It s a cutting objection which turned Bellarmine out of his rode At si ita est
246.2 The Church with whom the Covenant is made and to whom the Promises of the Covenant are made is the Spouse of Christ his Mystical Body the Sons and Daughters of the Lord God Almighty a Royal Priesthood a chosen Generation Kings Priests to God But this is the Invisible Church of elect Believers not the Visible Church of Visible Professors Pag. 248. The Church whose gathering together and whose unity of faith c. the Lord intendeth by giving to them to that end some to be Apostles c. must be the Church to which all the promises of the Covenant and Priviledges do belong But the Lord intendeth the gathering c. only of the Invisible Elected and Redeemed Church not of the Visible Professing or Confessing Church c. Pag. 249.4 The Invisible Church and not the Visible as it is such hath Right to the Sacraments because these who have Right to the Covenant have Right to the Seals of the Covenant But only the Invisible Church hath Right to the Covenant For God faith only of and to the Invisible Church and not of the Visible in his gracious purpose Jer. 32.38 And I will be their God and they shall be my people Jer. 31.33 I will put my Law c. Now the Visible Church as the Visible is not within the Covenant therefore the Visible Church as the Visible Church and being no more than the Visible Church hath not Right to the Seals of the Covenant but in so far as they are within the Covenant and in so far as God is their God and they his pardoned and sanctified People as it is Jer. 31.33 34. 5. It is known here that our Brethren joyn with the Papists For Papists ignorant of the doctrine of the Visible Church labour to prove that c. Just so our Brethren take all the places for the Priviledges Covenant Promises Stiles of Sister Love Dove Spouse c. 6. A Church in Covenant with God and the Spouse of Christ c. is a Church whereof all the members without exception are taught of God c. But so it is that no Visible Church on earth that are visible Professors of any competent number is such a Church c. therefore no Visible Church as such is a people or Church in Covenant with God See Roger's Catechis part 2. Art 6. pag. 176 177. Concl. 3. A visible Profession of the Truth and Doctrine of Godliness is that which essentially constituteth a Visible Church Only our Brethren and we differ much about the Nature of this Profession Our Brethren will have none members of the Visible Church but such as are satisfactory to the consciences of all the Visible Church and give Evidences so clear as the Judgement of discerning men can attain unto that they are truly regenerated See further This much I have cited specially as to the main Cause Further as to the Distinction in question see him after pag. 185.4 § 5. 1. Dist. All Believers in foro Dei before God have Right to the Seals of the Covenant These to whom the Covenant and body of the Charter belongeth to these the Seal belongeth But in foro Ecclesiastico in an orderly Church way the Seals are not to be conferred by the Church upon persons because they believe but because they profess their believing See further Pag. 188. 1. The Seals of the Covenant are principally given to the Invisible Church as the Covenant it self c. and The Invisible Church as such as a number of Believers have only Right before God to both Covenant and Seals 2. It 's true the Orderly and Ecclesiastick way of dispensing the Seals is that they be dispensed only to the Visible Church Pag. 286. These and many other places do strongly prove our point and specially that the Profession of Simon Magus who before God deserved to be cast out of the Church Act. 8. is sufficient to make one a member of a Visible Church Yea but none deserve in foro Ecclesiae in the Churches Court to be cast out but such as either confess scandalous Sins or are contumacious or convicted judicially of the same before witnesses c. The same Author in his Peaceable Plea pag. 181. We preach and invite in the Gospel all the uncircumcised in heart and all the wicked to come and hear and partake of the holy things of the Gospel and receive the promises thereof with faith And when they come to this heavenly banquet without their wedding Garment Math. 22.12 13. 2 Cor. 2.16 Mat. 21.43 44. it followeth not because they profane the holy things of God that Ministers who baptize the Infants of hypocrites and profane persons are accessary to the profaning the holy things of Christ It is one thing whom Ministers should Receive as members of the Sanctuary and Church and another thing who should come in Pag. 183. Object Divine wrath is kindled for the profanation of holy things Answ. That this is the Ministers or Churches profanation of holy things is not proved It is not wrath procured by the Ministers or those who Receive them into the Church but wrath procured by the unworthy In comers So far Rutherford Having said thus much to Mr. Blakes denyal of the distinction of Gods judgement and the Churches in this case I proceed to that which followeth in his book pag. 141. Mr. Blake 3. They may tell him of the necessity that is put upon Ministers to prophane this Divine Ordinance in putting this seal ordinarily and unavoidably to meer blank paper which is a most contumelious abuse of it Ans. They may sooner tell it than prove it to be any prophanation or contumelious abuse Big words may be bad arguments It s the Claimer that is the Prophaner whom you encourage by telling him that he hath a Title but it is not the Minister who was never made a searcher of hearts no not to know the truth of a Dogmatical faith and therefore may justly set the seal to a blank paper when the Receiver is made judge whether it be blank or not or at least is to give us the evidence that we must proceed upon I would you would before this have told us whether one that dissemblingly pretendeth your Dogmatical faith be a blank paper or not or one that as a Parrat is taught to say I believe in God c. when he understandeth not what he saith If not it seemes a Dogmatical faith is not the Title then in your account If yea then doth the Minister prophane the Ordinance in giving it such and hath not Mr. Blake sealed to many such blanks and contumeliously abused the Ordinance Mr. Blake They may tell him that poor souls are thus miserably cheated in bearing them in hand that these great priviledges and consequently all further Church priviledges are theirs when the conveyance is meer fraudulent that casts it upon them Answ. 1. Alas poor souls Alas miserable cheaters But who are they They that bear them in hand that
profess the pure Religion and make it appear at least to the judgment of man that they are Godly in Christ Iesus this is an inseparable Mark of a true Church as we may see 1 Cor. 14.33 See further Mr Vines in his Treatise of the Sacrament p. 150 151. saith That the Separatists laid the foundation viz. That only Visible Saints are fit Communicants which is true as to the Churches Admission That real Saints only are worthy Communicants which is true too as to the inward Grace or Benefit And 151. There is a great difference between Christs real Members and Guests at this Table and as I may say the Visible Churches Members or Guests If he be a visible Professor of Faith unshipwrakt of capacity to discern the Lords Body of Life without Scandal he is a Guest of the Church And p. 205. Though I should rest in serious Professsion of Faith and Repentance which is not pulled down again by a wicked Life or scandalous Sin yet when a man lieth under the charge of our censure for some scandalous sin the case is otherwise c. Read the rest And p. 324 329. The Covenant of God with us is that all that believe in Christ that died and receive him for their Lord and Saviour shall have remission of sins c. Answerable to this act of God the Believer accepts of and submits to this Covenant and the Conditions of it viz. to believe and to have God for our God and thereof makes a solemn profession in this Sacrament giving up himself to Christ as Lord and Saviour restipulating and striking hands with him to be his and so binds himself and doth as it were seal a Counterpart to God again and not only so but comes into a claim of all the riches and legacies of the Will or Covenant because he hath accepted and here declares his acceptance of the Covenant The Seal is indeed properly of that which is Gods part of the Covenant to perform and give and is no more but offered until we subscribe and set our hands to it and then its compleat and the Benefits may be claimed as the benefit of any conditional promise may be when the condition is performed And lest you should stumble at that word I must let you know that the Will accepting and submitting to the Conditions is the performance of the Conditions required NB. And pag. 249 250 c. Though as to admittance which is the Churches part to the outward Ordinance he make Profession as I do sufficient yet to the question whether the Sacrament be a Converting Ordinance he concludes that It is not an Ordinance appointed for Conversion His Arguments are 1. Because no effect can be ascribed to this Ordinance which fals not under the signification of it c. as Vasquez 2. This Sacrament by the institution of it appears to praesuppose those that reap the sweet and benefit of it to be Converts and in grace namely to have faith in Christ and to be living members and if this be presupposed by this Ordinance then it is not first wrought by it 3. The Word is the only Instrument of God to beget Faith or work Conversion c. And he answereth the Objections of the contrary minded and to them that argue that the Lords Supper is a Converting Ordinance because its possible a man may be then converted he saith they may as well make Ordination or Marriage Converting Ordinances because by the words then uttered a man may be converted He citeth the words of learned Rich. Hooker Eccles. Pol. l. 5. pag. 5â—6 The grace which we have by it doth not begin but continue grace or life no man therefore receives this Sacrament before Baptism because no dead thing is capable of nourishment that which groweth must of necessity first live And for further Authority he addeth And to this purpose all our Learned Divines have given their suffrage And the Papists though they differ from us in denying remission of sins in this Sacrament in favour to their Sacrament of Penance yet they hold it to be an Ordinance of Nutrition and so do all their Schoolmen and so doth the Church of England The strengthening and refreshing of our souls c I need not number Authors or Churches It is so plain a case that I wonder they that have stood up in defence of it as a converting Ordinance have not taken notice of it There is an Army to a man against them and the antient Christian Churches are so clear in it So far Mr Vines Hooker in him Concerning the Distinction of Forum Dei Ecclesiae and its sense see that judicious Agreement of the Associated Ministers of Cumberlanâ— and Westmerland pag. 47. where they take notice of Mr. Blakes questioning it Since these Papers were in the Press I was told by a Reverend Brother that Mr Blake professeth to hold the Necessity of the Profession of a saving Faith as well as I and by one of his special acquaintance in the Ministry who heard me express my mind that Mr Blake's was the same I durst not omit the mention of this lest it should be injurious to him And yet how far the reporters are in the right and understand his meaning I am no further able to tell you but that they are credible persons For my part I defended my own Doctrine against the charge which in two Volumes he brought against it And I supposed he would not write so much of two Volumes against a Doctrine which he judged the same with his own And I medled only with his books and not his secret thoughts Whether I have been guilty of feigning an Adversary that took himself for none I am contented to stand to the judgment of any impartial man on earth that will read our books Surely I found it over each page that a Faith short of Iustifying entitleth to Baptism and I never met with any such explication in him as that by A faith short of Iustifying he meant A Profession of Iustifying faith And sure Faith and Profession be not all one nor Iustifying and Short of justifying all one Nor do others that read his books understand him any otherwise then I do so far as I can learn sure the Ministers that were Authors of the Propositions for Reformation of Parish Congregations Printed for the Norwich Bookseller understood him as I do p. 17. where they say thus Obj. 3. But a dogmatical Faith may entitle to Baptism as Mr Blake Treat on Con. speaks though there be no profession of a justifying faith repentance Answ. We cannot think so seeing the faith required to be professed before Baptism is such a Faith as hath salvation annexed to it Mar. 16.16 It is a Faith of the whole heart Acts 8.38 Repentance is also required to Baptism as well as Faith Acts 2.38 and the Church in the usual form of Baptism enjoyned the baptized person not only to profess the doctrine of Faith but
Chuâ—ch These are both so groundlesly pleaded and by so few that are neer us that I think it not meet to trouble you with them any more 3. A condition pretended to be necessary is A true Justifying faith This also is a mistake but yet how far it is necessary to a true Right I shall open anon none of these three are meant by us in the question for these are not short of saving faith though we exclude the necessity of these as is said 4. Another qualification pleaded necessary and sufficient to the ends expressed in the question is A Profession of a saving Faith which is it that we are to defend 5. A fifth claim is laid upon the pretended sufficiency of a Faith short of Justifying But you will perhaps say what faith is that Those words tell us what Faith it is not viz. It is not justifying faith but they tel us not what faith â—t is To which I must say I know not my self nor can I learn of all the writings of those that go that way so perplexed and confounded or uncertain are they saying sometime one thing and sometime another But I shall have a fitter opportunity to enquire further into their mind or words anon 6. Another claim is laid upon the pretended sufficiency of the Profession of a faith short of that by which we are juâ—â—ified I say the Profession as distinct from that faith it self which the former claim made mention of Some other there are that yet go lower and think we may Baptize any that consent to be Baptized though they profess no faith at all nor their Parents nor pro-Parents neither And there have been so some foolish as to think that it is a work of charity to catch them and Bapâ—ize them whether they will or not But it is not our present business to deal with these The great adversary that we have here to deal with is the Papists And I shall in few words shew you part of their doctrine which we are now to oppose Their great Fundamental error on which they build their tottering Babel and tyrannical usurpation is this that the Catholike â—hurch is one Political society united in one visible head and governed by those that hold their power from him or at least are ruled by him and are conjoyned under these overseers in one Profession of faith and use of Sacraments Bellarmines words are these De Eccles. lib. 3. Nostra autem sententia est ecclesiam unam tantum esse non duas et illam unam et veram esse coetum hominum ejusdem Christianae fidei Professione et eorundem sacramentorum communione colligatum sub regimine legitimorum Pastorum ao praecipue unius Christi in terris vicarii Romani Pontificis And he addeth afterward Hoc interest inter sententiam nostram et alias omnes quod omnes aliae requirunt internas virtutes ad constituendum aliquem in ecclesia et propterea ecclesiam veram invisibilem faciunt nos autem et credimus in ecclesia invâ—niri omnes virtutes fidem spem charitatem et caeteras tamen ut aliquis aliquo modo dicipossit pars verae ecclesiae de qua scripturae loquuntur non putamus requiri ullam internam virtutem sed tantum externam professionem fidei et sacramentoruÌ„ communionem quae sensu ipso percipitur Ecclesia enim est coetus hominum ita visibilis palpabilis ut est coetus populi Romani vel Regnum Galliae aut respublica Venetorum Yet other Papists be not so strict with us but that they will distinguish between the professing Church and the true believing Church And Bellarmine in the next words citeth a passage as Austins which he commendeth which maketh Faith Hope and Charity to be the soul of the Church and the external profession of faith and use of sacraments to be the Body of it and some persons to be in it in one respect only some in the other only and some in both They confess indeed that of duty men should be found Believers at the first but ordinarily they say that is not to be expected and therefore they are first to be entered into the Church this visible Church by Baptism that this may be a means to bring them higher and by this entrance they are put under right guides and into the true body and so are fed with true ordinances yea with Christs body and blood and so are in the way to a true spiritual state The terms on which they must be admitted they say into this Political Church which is not the holiest of all is a Profession of faith and a consent to be a member of the society and to be under those Pastors and use those ordinances in order to further growth so that these they suppose to have a true faith and to be such as have right to this Church state but yet to be but in the way to a special saving faith for theirs is but fides informis or meer faith which is onely Assent say they joyned with the foresaid consent to live in a Church state but when Love is added then it is fides charitate formata and then they are become of the true spiritual society and have part in the soul as well as in the body of the Church so that though they desire fidem formatam in all yet it is not to be expected that so much as a Profession of it be exacted of those that enter into the first order by Baptism but when they enter into a retired monastical life then it must be expected and it is found in all that are fully justified For say they Baptism which entreth men into the visible Church doth put away their original sin and justifie them that is change them in tantum viz. from Heathenism or infidelity if they lay in it before but it doth not justifie them from their more spiritual latent sins such as lie in the heart and keep out the power of Grace but it is the work of special Grace which is given upon the good use of their Church state and Ordinances that doth this by giving them fidem formatam with charity and hope Among all this there is some truth and some error we confess that the Church is one Political society or Republâ—ck but not headed by men but only by Christ the several particular Churches being as so many distinct corporations that all make up this one Republick and are conjoyned internally by faith love and obedience to the same Lord and laws and externally by the use of the same confession worship c. and holding correspondency and brotherly communion as far as occasion and natural capacity shall enable them but not united in one visible frame of policy so as to be under the same Governors some as subordinate and one person or a General council being the supream No more then all the schools in England or in the world must have such a Political constitution and Government
was in them that must judge Angels ver 3. was a special saving sanctification But such did this seem to Paul which he speaketh of as is exprest in the Text therefore there must needs be at least a Profession of this And because Mr. Blake tells me pag. 14â— how well I know that he hath proved his assertion I shall peruse all those Texts which he citeth to that end in his Book of the Covenants pâ—g 207 208. And first we must observe that the persons that he there himself speaketh of are Visible Professors as distinct from the Elect and Regenerate yea from those that are really Saints and shall be for heaven And he calleth them men separate for God and Dedicated to him But this is unedifying slippery dealing to confound two distinct causes toâ—â—ther He that is professedly Dedicated to God is a Professor of saving Faith He that is really and heartily Dedicated to â—od shall certainly be saved Here Mr. Blake pleadeth the cause that I do maintain and not that which he hath undertaken against me and the common truth I confess as well as he that Profession maketh Saints visible or by profession as hearty Dedication to God by faith maketh real or heart-Saints But how angry is he himself afterwards at this distinction of Real and Professed Saints as if that none but the justified were real Saints But what is all this to a Saint-ship consisting in the Profession of a faith short of that which is Justifying I shall take these last to be Mr. Blake's Saints and no Scripture Saints I mean Saints of his denomination till he have better proved that ever Scripture so calleth them The Texts cited by him are these Frst Psal. 16.3 Saints on earth And I yield to him that there are Saints on earth Then 1 Cor. 16.1 Heb. 16.10 where we read of Collections for the Saints and Administration to the Saints By these I doubt not but he may prove that more than the heart-Saints are called Saints but that is because they profess and seem to be heart-Saints These Texts are far from proving that there are any Saints that profess not saving sanctity I shall anon tell Mr. Blake who they were that Calvin and other Protestants do expound the word Saints of in such Passages as these though he hath already told us that he abhorreth the Doctrine which they maintain But this is a Practical case that Mr. Blake hath here put us upon the Communion of Saints doth not only consist in Conjunction in God's Worship but also in mutual relief and free communication of outward things as the Text which he here citeth doth declare Those therefore that are of his mind must communicate as well to the Professors of a common Faith as of a saving Faith But hear who they be that Pareus supposeth Paul to mean in loc Docemur vero ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctorum quam credimus etiam huc pertinere ut necessitatibus fratrum mutuò tangamur pro virili succurramus prompte fideliter sumus enim unius Corporis membra c. Nam Fidei charitatis unitas omnes in Christo Capite conjungit It is then the Members of Christ united in him and joyned in Faith and Love And those that Profess to be such are so to us Acts 26.10 Acts 9.2 When Paul shut up many of the Saints in prison and did much evil against them he knew no other way of distinction than an outward Profession c. saith Mr Blake Answ. Nor do we know means hearts nor think that Paul knew them But the Question is What they professed Whether saving Sanctity or a common Sanctity and Faith short of it He addeth We read of Churches of the Saints 1 Cor. 14.33 and they were taken in to be Church-Members as soon as they made profession as they ceased to be Jews or Pagans and took them to the way of Christianity as we see Act. 2. Act. 8.12 13 38. Ans. 1. They renounced the way of ungodliness and wickedness in general by a Profession of repentance as well as the way of Paganism and Judaiism in particular There were no Christians that Professed not Repentance towards God from dead works 2. We believe that there were Churches of the Saints and therefore that none should be of the Church that Profess not to be true Saints But prove if you can that there was ever either Church or Church-member called Saints in Scripture that had no either special Sanctity or a Profession of it You say nothing to prove that any were called Saints upon the Profession of a Faith short of saving Faith Emphaticum est saith Calvin in loc quod exprimit sanctorum acsi Ecclesias rite compositas à sinistra nota subduceret Of which see him fully on 1 Cor. 1.2 And as for those Acts 8. you cannot prove that any of them were either called Saints or Baptized without a Profession of a Justifying faith as shall further be shewed afterward M. Blake addeth The Epistles wrote to particular visible Churches are inscribed to Saints among which what some are read both the Epistles to the Corinthians yea what almost all are in some Churches read the Epistle to the Church of Sardis Answ. 1. No man in any of these Churches is called a Saint upon the Profession of any lower kind of faith but only on the presence or profession of saving faith 2. I have not heard a proof that the worst of these Churchâ—s had many members if any that were impenitent and obstinâ—te in any error or sin after admonition and so that were visibly destitute of the saving Sanctity which they did Profess 3. If such there were the Churches are commanded to cast them out and then they will be no longer numbred with the Saints 4. The Apostles may well call the whole Society Saints when part are really so in heart and the rest Profess it We commonly tell both Papists and Separatists that the Scripture thus denominateth the whole from the better part as a field is called a Corn-field though theree be more Tares then Corn and yet you will not call the Tares Corn No more will I call the ungodly Saints when I know them though I will call the Church Saints where they are and them while they Profess themselves Saints and I know not but they are so 5. If you can with patience but read what Clavin saith on 1 Cor. 1.2 and Peter Martyr to name no more now you will see that Doctrine which you abhor maintained by the Protestants and in what current it is that your opinion floweth Mr. Blake adds The Apostle tells us of the faith once delivered to the Saints Jude 3. the doctrine of Faith as is agreed on all hands all that profess that Doctrine are Saints Answ. All that cordially entertain that Doctrine are Saints in Heart All that profess so to entertain it are Saints by Profession while that Profession hath any validity But all that barely
of a good conscience is we shall further enquire anon Both the common expositions fully confirm the point which I maintain The Assemblies Annot. recite both thus Hence by the answer of a good conscience we may understand that unfeigned faith whereof they made confession at their Baptism and whereby their consciences were purified and whereby they received the remission of their sins c. Some understand by the Answer of a good Conscience that Covenant whereinto they entered at their Baptism the embracing whereof they testified by their unfeigned confession of their Faith viz. such a Faith as is aforesaid so that I conclude that this Texâ— doth plainly shew that Baptm is for the saving of the Baptized as to the instituted use and may not be used meerly to any lower ends then to put them into a present state of Salvation Aâ—gum 18. No one may be admitted to Baptism who may not be admitted a Member of the Church of Christ. No one may be admitted to be a Member of the Church of Christ without the profession of a saving faith by himself or Parents or Proparents therefore no one may be admitted to Baptism without the profession of a saving faith I speak of such admission to Church-membership as is in the power of the Ministers of Christ who have the Keyes of his Kingdom to open and let in as well as to cast out The Major is past question because Baptism is our solemn entrance into the Church who were before entred by private consent and Accepted by the Covenant of God All the question is of the Minor which I shall therefore prove 1. It is before proved that all the Members of the Church must be such as are visibly solemnly or by profession sanctified from former sin cleansed justified persons of God the Heirs of the Promise c. But this cannot be without the profession of a saving faith Ergo c. 2. This also is before proved where it was shewed that no others are Christians or Disciples 3. In Acts 2.41 42 c. The many thousands were added to the Church were such as received gladly the doctrine of saving Faith and Repentance and continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and Prayer and so far contemned the world as to fell all and make it common And doubtless no man continued in those wayes of doctrine fellowship prayer c. without the profession of saving Faith Repentance for the very use of these is such a profession Of which saith Calvin in Act. 2.42 Quaerimus ergò veram Christi ecclesiam Hìc nobis ad vivum depictum est ejus Imago Ac initium quidem facit à doctrinâ quae veluti ecclesiae anima est not as barely heard but as professed or Received Nec quamlibet doctrinam nominat sed Apostolorum hoc est quam per ipsorum manus filius Dei tradiderat Ergo ubicunque personat pura vox Evangelii ubi in ejus professione manent homines ubi in ordinario ejus auditu ad profectum se exercent illic indubiè est Ecclesia c. Quare non temere haec quatuor receâ—set Lucas quum describere vult nobis ritè constitutum ecclesiae statum Et nos ad hunc ordinem eniti convenit si cupimus verè censeri Ecclesia coram Deo Angelis non inane tantum ejus nomen apud homines jactare And ver 47. It is said that the Lord added daily to the Church such as should be saved Obj. It saith not that all shall be saved that are added to the Church Answ. But it describeth them that were added to the Church viz. that were such as should be saved or as Beza yielded to another reading and so Grotius and many others such as saved themselves from that untoward Generation quisese quotidie servandos recipiebant in Ecclesiam The Church is the Body of Christ Col. 1.18 24. and none are members of his Body but such as either are united to him and live by him or at least seem to do so The Church is subject to Christ and beloved of Christ and cherished by him we are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones Ephe. 5.24 25 30. And those that are against the General Redemption me thinks should be moved with the consideration that it is the Church that Christ gave himself for even the visible Church which he purchased with his own blood Act. 20.28 Ephe. 5.25 and he is the Saviour of his body ver 23. But so he is not effectively the Saviour of the Professors of a Faith that doth not justifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he is the effective Saviour of those that profess a Justifying faith and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the sincere but of others neither way Hitherto Divines have gathered from the plain texts of Scripture that there is but One Church One Faith and One Baptism and that those that had this Faith really were to be baptized and were real members of the Church and that those that professed this faith and so seemed to have it when they have it not are visible members of the Church and are so taken because their Profession is sensible to us and by that they seem to have the thing professed But the Opponents are fallen into a new conceit in all these 1. They feign a New Christian faith to themselves viz. A faith that is short of Justifying which Scripture and the Church of God have taken to be but a preparatory to the Christian faith subjectively or but a common part of it objectively considered so that before there was but one Christian faith and now they have made two 2. And so before there was but one sort of real serious or sincere Christians consisting of such as had that real Christian faith and now they have found out another sort of them that hold another sort of faith 3. So have they feigned a new Baptism for the Old Baptism was for Remission of sin and Burial and Resurrection wiâ—h Jesus Christ and to engraff men into the Church wich is the body of Christ upon the profession of a saving faith but the new feigned ends of Baptism are far different 4. And they have feigned also a new kind of Church For the Church of Christs constitution is but one which is called visible from mens Profession and invisible from the faith professed But they have made a Church which consisteth of a third sort of members that is of men that neither have saving faith nor profess it but only have or profess to have a faith of a lower orb 5. To this end they have confounded the Church and the Porch the Vineyard and the adjacent part of the Wilderness those that heretofore were but Catechumeni or men in preparation for the Church are now brought into it and are annumerated to true Christians before they once profess themselves such and that upon a lower profession 6 And hereby also the
inquit ex toto corde licet quasi non baptizaturus nisi id ille porfiteretur ipseque Charitatis saltem judicio ita credere credat Read the rest And pag. 66. Ad hos sines Sacrationem Remissionem peccatorum vel alterutrum horum consequendos Baptisma mihi minimè institutum videtur quum in institutione ipsa eis primariò administrandum ordinetur qui ex praedicatione Evangelii side in Christum imbuti disciplinam Christianam jam amplexifuerunt Mar. 16.15 16. Matth. 28.18 At hi sanati ex parte reatu omni exoluti ad Baptismum suscipiendum accedebaent aut ejusmo ii saltem esse praesumebantur antequam ad Baptismum admitterentur Quin Johannis baptismae ejusdem fuisse efficaciae cum illo qui ab Apostolis ex Christi instituto administrabatur adversus Pontificios nostri omnes tuentur At in Joannis Baptismo praevia exigebatur poenitentia quam peccatorum venia necessariò inseparabiliter consequitur See his Defens of this against Dr. Ward 's Answ. pag. 67 68. And as to the pretended different use to Infants pag. 69. 1. Principali effecto imò principalibus effectis caruisse baptismum c. 2. Si quem in parvulis alium effectum statuere libuerit quà m in adultis obtineat id mirum valdè S.S. nusquam insinuâsse nec de eo certi quicquam constare poterit quo fides nostra nitatur donec Verbulo salâ—em Divino aliquo illud nobis innotescat Steph. Tzegedinus Loc. Commun de Sacram. Tab. 2. saith Sacramenta non conferre gratiam quia sancti priùs Justificati receptique in gratiam quà m initiati sint Sacramentis Lamb. Danaeus Resp. ad Tom. 2. Bellarm. de Sacram. pag. 167. Bellarminus putat absurdè hic oportuisse Baptismum praecedere Fidem non autem Fidem Baptismum Promissio enim praecedit sigillum ergo est mediatum subsequent fidem verbum Sacramenti utroque posterius He speaks of Justifying faith Leg. pag. 78. Many such passages he hath too long to be cited Ravanellus Biblioth de Baptism pag. 184. In nomine vel in nomen Patris Filii Spiritus sancti baptizari dicimur quia per baptismum S.S. Trinitas nor in gratiam recipere testificatur nos vicissim spondemus ac profitemur ei nos totos dicare consecrare Et col 2. Adulti ad baptismum admittendi sunt modò fidem prositeantur Act. 2.41 8.12 13 37 38. 9 18 6 11 17. 16 15 14 33 32. peccata publicè confiteantur se agnoscentes ex gratuita remissione salutem consequi Mat. 3.6 Marc. 1.5 Et de Sacram. pag. 512. Col. 2. Terminus vel finis Sacramenti est vel Cui nempe soli foederati Inter foederatos autem Dei censentur omnes illi qui sunt in external Ecclesiae communione prositentur se in Christum credere vero cum inter hoc quidam possint esse hypocritae impii ideo Sacramenta in Ecclesia communia sunt piis impiis Ita tamen ut impii pro Piis probabiliter habeantur Thus commonly speak Protestants on this Subject The Church of Scotland in their Heads of Church Policy recited by Spotswood in his History l. 6. pag. 289. thus begin 1. The Church of God is sometime largely taken for all them that profess the Evangel of Jesus Christ and also it is a company not only of the Godly but also Hypocrites professing outwardly one true Religion 2. At other times it is taken for the Elect only and the Godly So that here are none acknowledged Church-members but those only that are truly Godly and Elect or seem to be so and are Hypocrites if they be not so The Helvetian Confession as in the Harmony translated p. 287. of Bapt. faith To be baptized in the name of Christ is to be enrolled entered and received into the Covenant and Family and so into the Inheritance of the sons of God and called the sons of God and purged also from the filthiness of sins and to be indued with the manifold Grace of God for to lead a new and innocent life We therefore by being baptized do confess our faith and are bound to give unto God obedience mortification of the flesh and newness of life yea and we are listed souldiers for the warfare of Christ that all our life long we should fight against the World Satan and our own flesh And none but sound believers truly consent to this and therefore none but Professors of sound belief do profess consent to it I shall pass over the Confessions of other Churches containing the same doctrine The Professors of the Protestant University of Saumors in France in their excellent Thes. Vol. 3. are full on the point Pag. 58. Thes. 27. Obsignat autem illam certè ut quia nos profitentur habere per fidem communionem cum Morte Resurrectione Christi fructum utriusque ad nos pertinere testificetur Fructus autem ille primùm in Justificatione situs est At quemadmodum professio illa habet in se inclusam promissionem de per severantiâ in eâ fide sic obsignatio pariter habet stipul itionem quandam tacitam illius perseverantiae Thes. 29. pag. 59. Sacramenta verò non conferuntur nisi itâ— qui vel fidem habent vel saltem eum prae se ferunt adeò ut nullis certis argumentis compertam esse pâ—ssit eam esse ementitam Pag. 50. Thes. 7. Est tamen inter ea notabile discrimen quod penè in omnium sensus incurrit scilicet ut jam alibi animadvertimus sacramenta quidem nemini tribuuntur nisi qui censeatur implevisse conditionem quam Deus ab hominibus foedere suo exigit This is the doctrine that Mr. Blake will not be entreated to understand viz. that the very Covenanting on our parts is the first and great condition imposed and required in the Covenant or promise of God and so when we sincerely covenant we perform the condition of his Promise Heart-covenanting is by consenting and Consent joyned to Assent is Justifing faith At Conditionis impletio dupliciter consideraâ—ur nimirum vel in iis momentis quibus praestatur pâ—imùm vel in eo tempore quo conservatur perseverat Conditi nis autem Evangelicae ea natura est ut praestari nequeat quin illico introducat eum à quo praestatur in Christi coÌ„munionem societatem Ecclesiae atque adeò quin ei acquirat adoptionem per quam numeratur in Dei filiis Joan 4.11 Cum vero conservatur atque persistit nihil aliud facit nisi quòd easdem illas praerogativas retinet ne iis excidamus Baptismus autem in eum finem comparatus est ut ea omnia obsignet quatenus communicantur primùm Coena verò ut retineantur Thes. â— Sunt enim duo certè genera hominum quae ad participationem foederis Evangelici à Deo admittuntur
ought not to be baptized nor any on their account The Major is proved 1 In that it is part of Christianity And to be baptized into his name is to take him as our Prophet 2. Such should be cut off Acts 3.23 Mr. Gilespie and others expound Moses cutting off of Excommunication therefore not admitted in such a condition Argu. 20. If notoriously ungodly baptized Parents are notoriously uncapable of presenting and dedicating their children to Christ covenanting with him on their behalf then are they Notoriously uncapable of Interesting their children in the Covenant or Baptism Or Then may we not baptize them on their account But the Antecedent is true as I prove thus 1. A man that notoriously refuseth to accept of Christ himself and to take him as he is offered to covenant truly with him is Notoriously uncapable of doing the same on the behalf of another For he that hath no true faith for himself cannot have it for his child though perhaps he may be content that his child let go some sins for Christ which he cannot spare himself but c. Ergo. 2. He that is Notoriously a perfidious Breaker of his own verbal covenant is while such uncapable of covenanting with Christ for another For such a mans word is not to be taken he hath forfeited his credit till he repent and return to his fidelity But such are all the notorious Ungodly Ergo. c. The Consequence of the main Argument is clearly good because he that brings any child to be baptized must covenant for it with Christ for it is a mutual Covenant that must be entered in Baptism The child cannot consent or covenant by it self therefore it must do it by others and that must be those that present it as having Right on their Account And he that is not Willing for himself cannot Consent for another Argu. 21. From the second Commandment with all those other Texts that express Gods differencing the seed of the wicked and godly If it be Gods will that there shall be visible notes of his displeasure on the children of the Notoriously ungodly as theirs in comparison of the children of the godly then we ought not to baptize them But the Antecedent is true Therefore so is the Consequent Here note 1. That we speak not of any children of ungodly men who at age renounce their Parents waies and themselves fear God of whom Ezek. 18. speaks but only of them while Infants and as theirs 2. In the Antecedent I mean that God hath so visibly noted out the children of the Notoriously ungodly as such to lie under his displeasure that he would have the Church and all take notice of it and esteem of them accordingly The reason of the Consequent is because Baptizing puts them among those that are visibly under Gods favour the Church being called the Body of Christ the House of the Living God c. But those that be visibly from under his special favour should not be put into such a Body The Antecedent I prove 1. from the second Commandment where note 1. that the parties differenced are the Posterity of them that hate God on one side and on the other those that love him and keep his Commandments Not only between Professors of Faith or of Infidelity but between godly and ungodly it being usual in Scripture to call the ungodly Haters of God and justly and it is those that love him not and keep not his Commandments that are called haters of him 2. Note that it is a visible mark of his favour which he there putteth on the seed of the godly from whence we may well gather their Church-membership as I have shewed elsewhere Therefore it is a visible note of his disfavour which he putteth on the Notoriously ungodly from whence we may gather that they are not to be visible Church-members 3. Note also that this is in the Decalogue and a standing determination of God and not ceremonial or transitorie Note also how the Scripture all along concurs The seed of Cain are called the children of men though its like they acknowledged God to be their Maker who might have heard Adam tell them of the creation And indeed it is ungodliness and wickedness that God drowned the World for Yet are these children of Cain as an excommunâ—cate brood whom the children of God might not joyn with The Infants of all the wicked of the world are drowned with their Parents in the Flood The Infants of Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed with their Parents who are said by Jude to suffer the vengeance of eternal fire as an example not of original sin but to those that after should live ungodly The children of the Egyptians are destroyed for their Parents sins while Israels are preserved The children of Daâ—han and Abiram and their confederates were swallowed up with them for their Rebellion yet did their parents confess the true God and were circumcised Achans children were all stoned to death and burned for his sin Josh. 7.15.26 It was Gods command to Israel that if any City were reduced and drawn away to serve other gods that City infants and all should be destroyed Deut. 13.12 13. c. God commanded Israel to put to death all the Infants of all the Nations that were given them for Inheritance Deut. 20.16 17. which was for the Parents abomination The Amalekite's infants must all be slain So are all the Males among the little ones of the Midianites Numb 31.17 The children of Daniels Accusers are cast into the Den of Lions Dan. 6.24 And Babylones little ones must be dash't against the stones Psal. 137.9 The wicked are cursed in the fruit of their body yea It is cursed Deut. 28.18.32.41 Christ would have gathered the children of Jerusalem great and small but did not because they would not On that Generation he brought all the righteous blood that was shed from Abel and takes witness from their own mouths that They were the children of them that killed the Prophets Now I think if the children of the notoriously ungodly lie under Gods visible displeasure thus far they should not by Baptism as theirs be taken into that society that are visibly in his favour and distinguished from all the world as a Peculiar people a Holy Priesthood a Royal Nation the Children of God the Body and Spouse of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Ghost Argu. 22. That Doctrine is not found which confoundeth the Catechumeni as to their description which the rightfull members of the Church But such is the Doctrine that we oppose yea worse For the Catechumeni might understand and believe the fundamentals which is all the Title that these men can produce by their profession But they were not to be admitted into the Church till they had more even resolutions expressed to obey Nay many such without the Church had some willingness to learn and waited long on teaching to that end But so will not many of these in
these to be his people Deut. 26.17 who are yet in an unregenerate state Ans. By some way obliged you mean either conditionally and so he is obliged to all the present living Infidels that ever heard the word if not to all the world or absolutely or actually and for the later let Mr. Blake on the next page answer Mr. Blake on this page his words are Did ever man speak of an absolute tye in a conditional covenant whether the conditions be kept or no that therefore before mentioned which he calls the great question is no question at all It were madness to affirm that which with these limits he thus denies The Condition suspendeth the Actual Obligation or at least the Right given beyond all controversie Indeed if the stipulation were only in diem and not conditionally then the thing promised were presently Due that is to be hereafter received and the promissary had jus ad rem though not statim possidendi statim crederet dies etsi non statim veniret dies For in a stipulation in diem crescit dies quia statim debetur sed nondum venit quia non efficaciter peti potest But in a promise conditional there is no right in the promissary nor proper actual obligation on the promiser till the condition be performed And if Mr. Blake deny this he should have told us what it is that God is actually obliged to do on mens bare profession or common sort of believing But this he could not do without contradicting himself and the truth And for Gods avouching Israel to be his people I answer 1. He avouched them all to be what they were that is a people that had actually made an open profession of consenting to his covenant and had ore tenus taken him for their God 2. He avouched them to be his people also because that very many how many Gods knows were sincere in this covenant and the whole may be denominated from the better part especially if also the greater as our Divines use to tell the separatists that as a field that hath much Tares is called a Corn-field not from the Tares but the Corn which is the better and valued part so the Church is so denominated say they from the sincere Believers 3. He avouched them to be his people in regard of his peculiar choice of Israels seed to those temporal Mercies and priviledges which they had a promise of above other Nations of the earth as many such are known What benefits the Hypocrites had shall be enquired into anon Ob. 5. The Jews had much advantage and the Circumcision much profit every way Rom. 3.1 2. Answ. The great advantages of the whole Nation were principally for the sake of the Elect as the third verse following sheweth and many mercies the rest had by being among them which were not by a Moral Donation given particularly to those Professors but to the Nation denominated from the better part 2. The Unbelievers or Ungodly had much advantage by providential disposals planting the spiritual Church among them c. of which they had themselves no proper grant by donation and to which they could lay no claim that was justifiable before God And they had much accidentally from the Ministers Commission as is before explained And thus the ungodly may have still both Word and Sacraments and outward Communion with the Church and much of Gods protection and blessing for the sake of the godly to whom they joyn themselves by outward profession But this is formerly answered and so are all the rest of the material Objections that I remember in my Apologie to Mr. Blake and therefore I shall to avoid further tediousness refer the Reader thither and if he have read that and this I think he will not need more words if he read not in the dark to save himself from being deceived by any of the rest of Mr. Blake's Replies Only one or two of his Summaries I shall examine as I finde them set together pag 141 142. and pag. 551. Ob. 6. Saith Mr. Blake pag. 141. My third Argument to prove that a Faith short of Justifying may give Title to Baptism is to make the visible seal of Baptism which is the priviledge of the Church visible to be of equal latitude with the seal of the Spirit which is peculiar to invisible members is a Paradox When I put him to prove that this Paradox is mine in the generality here exprest he proves it from my own words where I say We give the seal of Baptism to all that seem sound Believers and their seed and we say the seal of the sanctifying spirit is only theirs that are such believers I am convinct beyond denial viz. To seem believers and to be believers is all one and seeming believers and real believers are terms of equal latitude And thus I am confuted as Mr. Blake useth to confute me no doubt to the full satisfaction of some of his Readers The Visible Seal may be said to be of equal latitude 1. Either in regard of a Title by Moral Donation which Coram Deo will warrant a Claim and Reception and so I say that saving faith and such a Title to Sacraments with the adult are of equal latitude 2. Or in regard of the justifiableness of a Ministers Administration and the persons claim Ecclesia judice and so they are not of equal latitude But saith Mr. Blake For his distinction which he hints here and plainly delivers elsewhere of Right in foro Dei and in foro Ecclesiae both to Covenant and Baptism I suppose considerate men will pause upon it before they receive it especially in the sense which he puts upon it I like considerate pausing Readers But le ts hear your Reasons 1. Saith Mr. Blake they may press him with his own Rule Ubi lex non distinguit non est distinguendum such a Right to visible Ordinances before men never granted of God I would fain learn Answ. But I know not what Teacher you would fain learn of Far be it from me to imagine that I can teach you in any thing But yet I may presume to tell you though not to teach you 1. That as is often manifested such an improper right may result from the Precept or Ministerial Commission to give the Sacrament to Believers or Professors of Faith that claim them without a Donation of Title to themselves to warrant that claim 2. That the nature of things must be distinguished from those Morals which the Law must constitute I am of opinion that we need not go to the distinctions of the Law to prove either that God and the Church are not all one but are really distinct or that the Understanding and Judgement of God and of the Church are not all one or that Gods Approbation Justification or Condemnation is really distinct from mans 3. There are some necessary Distinctions afforded us by that Doctrine which treats de legibus in Genere which we
enquiry Which is the Church that hath this Infallibility Unless we say that all have it that call themselves the Church against which many Councils have Judged when they required the rebaptizing of all that were baptized by the Paulianists c. In a word all the Arguments which we use against the Papal Infallibility might be here taken up and Voluminously managed against this And if Mr. Blake disown this Infallibility there is no way left but either to say that God hath no Judgement of this Case but what is fallible which I hope he will not or that God hath one Judgement of it and the Church another and then we have that we seek If he say that God hath no immediate Judgement at all of it but only the Churches which is mediately his I answer 1. The Churches is not mediately his when it is sinfully erroneous 2. If God have a knowledge and observance of it then he hath a Judgement of it But to deny Gods knowledge or observance of it is intolerable therefore 3. And I must say that since I have observed in Scripture both the use that God makes of good Angels and of evil about the sons of men and what appearances they make before him Job 1. and how the faithful have their Angels beholding Gods face how they have charge of us and bear us up and are ministring spirits for our good and how the Excommunicate are delivered up to Satan with much more of the like I easily believe that God may well be said to have a forum and pass his sentences on the sons of men before his Angels were it but by committing his will to Execution by them For so far as they are Executioners they must have a Commission for Execution which containeth or implieth the sentence And so there is a Justification and a Condemnation now before them Argum. 2. If God have no other Judgement about Right to Ordinances but the Churches Judgement then Hypocrites have equal Right before God and before the Church or Judice Deo Judice Ecclesia yea it is the same Right which is more than equal Right But the Consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent A Jew that would make a jest of Christ and Baptism by a feigned Profession hath such a Right Ecclesia Judice as that the Church cannot contradict it But God can contradict it The Church cannot find any imperfection in it but God can Ecclesia Judice his Right is as good as the soundest Believers but God will not say so He may charge the Church with doing him wrong if they deny him the Sacrament but so he cannot charge God if he hinder or prohibit it Surely God will acknowledge a further Title to Sacraments in the Saints than such a Jew or Pagan hath Argum. 3. Where there are different Executions there are different Judgements But God hath an Execution different from the Churches in this Case as is apparent 1 Cor. 11. For this cause many are sick and weak c. If we would judge our selves we should not be judged c. Therefore God hath a Judgement differing from the Churches Argum. 4. If about all humane acts God have a Judgement differing from mans then about the present Case But the Antecedent is so evident and so momentous that I hope few Christians will question it Instead of arguing such a Cause any further I shall lament the case of the Church among us that any should be found among its Reverend Pious Guides that shall so confidently publish or so easily entertain as some seem to do so strange a point as this which we oppose For how far may they yet be led that can so easily be led to this Compassion of the Church of Christ doth urge me to speak thus though I know to the guilty its like to be offensive But yet we may thank God that there be so few of such conceits sure I am it is ordinary with Protestants and Papists in such cases to distinguish between forum Dei Ecclesiae Gods Judgement and the Churches Instead of citing many I shall now take up with one only whose Cause against the Separatists did lead him so much to have entertaâ—ned the helps that lie on that side that if he had thought this notion of Mr. Blakes sound he was very like to have received it Rutherford in his due Right of Presb. Cap. 9. § 9. p. 242. Dist. 1. Any who blamelesly professeth Christ is Ecclesiastically in foro Ecclesiae a true and valid member of the Church visible having Ecclesiastical power valid for that effect but except he be a sincere believer he is not morally and in foro Dei a living member of the invisible Church Dist. 3. The Invisible Church Catholick is the principal prime and native subject of all the Priviledges of Christians the Covenant Promises Title of Spouse Bride Redeemed Temple of the holy Spirit c. And the Church Visible as she is such is no waies such a subject the non-consideration whereof we take to be the ground of many Errors in our Reverend Brethren in this matter which also deceived Papists as our Divines demonstrate Dist. 4. A seen Profession is the ground of members admission to the Visible Church Hence there is a satisfaction of the Conscience of the Church in admitting of members either in the Judgement of Charity or in the Judgement of Verity Dist. 5. There is a satisfaction in the Judgement of Charity Positive when we see signs which positively assure us that such an one is Regenerate and there is a satisfaction Negative when we know nothing on the contrary which hath a latitude for I have a Negative satisfaction of the Regeneration of some whose persons and behaviour I know neither by sight or report This is not sufficient for the accepting of a Church-membership therefore somewhat more is required pag. 244. Concl. 2. The Invisible and not the Visible Church is the principal prime and only proper subject with whom the Covenant of Grace is made to whom all the Promises do belong and to whom all Titles Styles Properties and Priviledges of special note in the Mediator do belong If our Reverend Brethren would be pleased to see this they would forsake their doctrine of a visible constituted Church c. 1. The Church to whom the Covenant and the Promises of the Covenant are made is a Church and a seed which shall endure as the daies of heaven Psal. 89.35 36. and such as can no more fall away from being Gods people in an eternal Covenant with him then their God can alter what he hath spoken or lie Psal. 89.33 34 35. They can no more cease from being in Gods favour or be cast off of God than the Ordinances of Heaven can depart from before God c. Jer. 31.35 36 37. Isa. 54.10 or then God can retract his Oath and Promises Heb. 6.18 19 20. But the Visible Church of this or that Parish c. Pag.
a distance about a matter of open fact I must still say that I hoped Dr. Ward would not have found a Second to undertake that Cause But this doth not intimate either that I never read that any was of his minde before or that I expected not that any should be afterward It s one thing to be of that Opinion and another thing as his Second to undertake it But I will now say more than that which you wonder at I must profess that I do not know of any one Protestant Divine reputed Orthodox of that Judgement before Dr. Ward and you though some Papists and Arminians I knew of that minde and since I finde Sir Hen. Vane maintain it and one John Timson in his Defence of M. Humphrey and now newly M. Humphrey in his second Vindication of Free Admission Let all Readers now come and wonder at your wondering and mine or at least the vast disagreement of our Judgements in such a point of fact All that ever open the books of Protestants come and judge betwixt Mr. Blake and me Dr. Ward and he do maitain That a certain kinde of faith which is short of Justifying faith giveth title to Baptism even before God I say that only true Justifying faith is the condition of our Title before God as given by him and warranting our claim but that the bare profession of that Justifying faith but of no lower doth make us such whom the Minister must give the Sacraments to if we claim them and so by it we have a Right to them before the Church and so far before God as he is the approver of the Churches act Mr. Blake saith almost every one of our late Writers appear for him I say I remember none of the Reformed Divines for them Nor do I finde that Mr. Blake himself hath produced any to that end but by meer abusing them Certain I am that the common doctrine of Reformed Divines is that sound believers are members of the mystical Church and that professors of that belief are members of the visible Church to whom we must give Sacraments But as for your third sort who believe with another kinde of faith or profess so to do it is not their use to take these as members of either or such as have right to Sacraments One more Objection I finde much stood upon which I had almost forgot viz The Sacraments are appointed for the visible Church therefore all that are of the visible Church have Right to them Answ. the word appointed is ambiguous If it mean only that Ministers are appointed to deliver it to men upon an outward Profession and Claim this we still grant But if the meaning be that Hypocritical or Unregenerate Professors have any Moral Donation or Promise of them or any command to claim and receive them in their present state this is but a bare affirming of the thing in question and so their Consequent is the same with the Antecedent What Mr. Galespie and Mr. Rutherford and many other Divines have said against it you have seen before as also by what Scripture-Evidence it is destroyed Ob. But t is said of the Jews that to them pertained the Adoption and the Glory and the Covenants and the giving of the Law and the Service of God and the Promises Rom. 9.4 Answ. 1. Yet will it not follow that all these pertain to all the Visible Church and therefore not to the Church as Visible The Glory that is the Ark and other signs of some Glorious Presence and the giving of the Law here mentioned with other Priviledges expressed in the next words were proper to the Jews 2. The Jewish Nation contained some that were truly sanctified and some that were not To the later sort was given the Law Covenants Promises c. providentially and by way of Offer God so ordered it that among them these excellent mercies should abide and to them they should be offered and if they had heartily accepted them they might have had a proper Title to the Benefits of the Covenant it self And it fell out that the seals were actually applied to them upon their pretended acceptance of the offer and upon their claim But to the former belonged the Covenants and Promises as the instruments of Gods Donation whereby he conveyed to them actuall Right to the Benefits But so it did not to the latter unless we speak of some particular promise made to this or that indiviall person or some temporal promises to the Jews as Jews and not as a Visible Church Yet may it well be said that to the Jews in general the Covenants Promises c. belonged not only because the Regenerate were Jews and the whole Nation was denominated from the better part sometime but also which is Pauls sence in that Text because it is not the foresaid proper Right that is here spoken of but the actual sending of this Light among them and the tendering of it to them and continuing it with them together with the success of it so far as that some were sanctified by it and others seemingly consented to it And thus we may say of England now in the general that it enjoyeth the Gospel and Sacraments c. in that they are among us and all men that are truly willing may have a saving title to them and the rest that pretend to be willing and are not do actually partake of the External Ordinance though to their own condemnation through their own default But this is no affirming that the unregenerate have a proper Title given them which may warrant their claim in that estate I mean to the Sacraments which are special Ordinances The Reverend Vindicator of Free Admission layeth down 13 Reasons to prove that the Covenant in the general Grace and external Administration of the Ordinances belongs to the whole Church as Visible and to the several members alike To which I say 1. that it belongs to them is too large a word without distinction to use in a profitable discourse I have elsewhere shewed that Covenant and Seals do belong to them in some sence and in other not and how far such are in Covenant 2. Note on the by that if this were granted it s nothing to Mr. Blake's main cause against me that a Faith short of justifying gives Right For no man was ever a member for a Faith short of justifying but only for a saving faith or the profession of a saving faith 3. Note that the stress of the Controversie is not Whether it belong to them at all but whether as he affirmeth to all alike Enough is said before for the solving of his Arguments More particularly To the first Pag. 6. How the whole Nation of the Jews were in Covenant is before declared more than which is yet unproved and also how little this makes for his End To the Second We easily grant that the Gentiles are graffed into the same Olive and are as much in the Covenant of Grace
without so great sin or offence as shall cast so Reverend a man into trembling and tears no doubt in compassion of me I think its time to lay by this kinde of work I have been it seems also a temptation to him to tell the world such stories of my self as I little thought such a man would have reported As Mr. Robertson talks so confidently of his discourses with Mr. Hothkis who professes he never saw him or spoke a word to him so doth my dear friend Mr. Blake tell the world as truly once on the credit of his Informer but again absolutely without such limitation that I have given out that I have made some body my Convert who professeth now to be satisfied in his Book Whereas he might as truly have told them that I take my self to be King of France or Spain If he will bring his tale-carriers face to face and prove by any faithful witness that I ever boasted of any man as my Convert or ever said of one man living that I had made him my Convert in any matter of such opinions I will give you leave to spit in my face and call me lyar As fairly doth he cast his censures on the credit of his Informers at the Wocestershire combination as he termeth it that the most prophane where the Minister carries any Authority are as forward as any with more of the like whereas if he had been unsatisfied in their proceedings there are many Reverend Brethren there that would have readily given him an account of them and a better information And he was publickly told by them and me that we were not gathering Churches or taking in members and therefore not discerning who were meet but only discerning who did account themselves as such and profess themselves such already And as fairly doth he report that he hears I bring in the name of Reverend Mr. Ball to give honor to this that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and the reformed Churches is one and the same or inconsiderably differing in this of justification And then tels us that he heard it himself and told Mr. Ball of it and that he disclaimed it Whereas 1. It was not half this much that I spake 2. And do not know that ever I spake it to three men or more 3. And I must profess to the world that the man I had it from was Mr. Blake himself and only him and that at too several times once mentioning the Papists doctrine and the other time the Arminians about justification and that he reported the neerness of us to them as Mr. Ball 's saying but never told me with it one word of his disowning it 4. And I never spake this my self as approving the conceit that the Papists and we did so inconsiderably differ herein And now let the equity of Mr. Blakes dealing be judged of whether he were a fit man publickly to accuse me of this crime who was my only Author I would never have mentioned these things if he had not thus necessitated me Though I am in doubt that he will take it ill that in all these things I deny his Accusations and do not by my silence interpretatively belye my self And as to the main bulk of his Disputes against me I must needs say that there is such ordinary mistaking the sence or quite overlooking the drift of my Arguments and Answers and obscuring the matter with meer shifts and confusions that if I should give a punctual answer to such a book I think the perusal of it would be ungratefull to the Reader For what profit can it be to any man to be convinced at so dear a rate how much Mr. Blake hath miscaried in his arguing I know my censures of his labors are like to be provoking But who can help that Had I thought him in the right I had never contradicted him Or could I yet see that I have erred I must needs approve that light which did reveal it And if I be in the wrong it is no news for an erring man to think that he doth not err and if he think not so he doth not err in minde but in word But if I prove in the right if it will not excuse me that I do but ward off the blow that he giveth me not that I plead for Gods truth at least let it excuse me that some evidence is cogent and some light so constraining that I cannot chuse but think as I do think till I have better evidence to the contrary than doth appear in Mr. Blakes Reply And so little is my understanding at the disposal of my will that if my life lay on it I could not choose but be perswaded in my heart that Mr. Blakes Reply is so full of mistakes and built upon such misunderstanding of the words that he Replyeth to that it tendeth more to darken the truth than to clear it and to pervert the inconsiderate that will take things on trust or think his cause best that hath the last word to colour it and put a gloss upon it and that there needs no more with the judicious Reader that is willing to try before he trust and thinks the truth is worth his labour than impartially to read over the words that Mr. Blake doth Reply to for the manifesting of the insufficiency of his Reply as to the main of the cause He will think this is great confidence but what Remedy I think he is neer as confident though both be not in the right And I doubt not but Dr. Owen can see the height of my Pride in this confidence But certainly when ever I come to be so humble as to believe all that such Reverend Brethren say I must needs be so Proud as to disbelieve those that contradict them For I see it a matter not to hoped for that ever they that are so offended with me should come to an agreement among themselves As Dr. Owen and Mr. Blake are against me so Mr. Blake and I are against Dr. Owen and so its runs round And if I should be so humible as to agree with one of them what shall I do for another inconsistent humilitie to make me of the others minde that is against him I must confess that there is one part of the contest between Mr. Blake and me at least that I think well worthy a review and that is the question about the nature of that faith which gives Right to Sacraments For as it is a matter that comes so frequently into practice and of such moment to particular persons to Ministers and to the welfare of the Church so I do not know of any that hath said so much for that cause which I yet account so bad as Mr. Blake hath done and indeed he hath put a fairer gloss on this than on any of the rest And yet in my judgement he hath left it so naked that a little diligence and impartially may do much to discover his opinions
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
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
Pelagians and the â—ouncils that opposed them went all the same way which could not be the Pelagian way 3. It was the constant Doctrine of these Fatherâ—â—nd the Church then that Faith and Repentance given in 〈◊〉 did go first and that Justification Adoption and Sanâ—â—iâ—iâ—aâ—ion followed after And so hold all the reformed Divineâ— that I know of till Mr. Pemble lately contradicted it And so they took this Justifying Faith and true Repentance to be prerequisite to Baptism and therefore note 1. That all the forementioned terms describe only Justification and Sanctification 2. That they never speak a word of Justifying Faith or Repentance infused by Baptism for these are supposed 3. That therefore they ever enquired before hand whether they believed in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and renounced the Flesh the World and the Devil as is aforesaid and caused them to profess this before they would baptized them 4. The Fathers erred not so much as many suppose in their ascribing to Baptism For 1. sometime by Baptism they mean not only the external Ordinance but the whole work therein to be done viz. the Accepting Christ solemnly in Covenant and giving up our selves as a sanctified people to him renouncing the Flesh the World and the Devil and so becoming fully Christians This is baptism with them and not the outward sign alone And what saith Peter less when he saith Baptism saveth us and thus expoundeth himself when he hath done And what say the Fathers more 2. When they speak of these effects of Baptism they suppose a due recipient or subject that is A true Believer or the Seed of such and therefore they oft speak of the inefficacy of the outward Baptism to Hypocrites 3. When they speak of the outward Ordinance only the collation which they ascribe to it and all the great effects are to be understood but by way of obsignation and solemnization and not solely excluding the internal Faith and the Covenant as actual solemnized Marriage gives a woman right to her husband and all that he hath when yet she had a right by secret Covenant and Contract before Now common Reason and the Nature of the thing and many of the Contexts shewing that the Fathers and Councils must be thus expounded according to these Rules I would fain know how they deserve that heavy accusation that we commonly lay upon them for their Judgement in this or what ground the Papists have to plead them generally for their efficay ex opere operato And yet I will not excuse each particular person of them thus Object But it is the Baptism of the Adult that the Church hath generally ascribed so much to and therefore though they took all the Adult for Regenerate and Justified when baptized yet they did not judg so of Infants Answ. I will answer this in Mr. Gatakers words ibid. pag. 64. 1. Quae de Baptâ—smo in genere enunciantur etiam paedobaptismo conveniant necesse est quod sub isto comprehendatur 2. Baptismum unum eundemque agnoscere se profitentur veteres adultorum parvulorumque nec diversum in his ab illis effectum ejusdem 3. Etiam parvulorum Baptismi disertè meminerunt aliquoties ubi baptismo ista tribuunt 4. Axioma illud quod ab adversa parte urgetur tantopere de Sacramentorum effectis ubi obex non ponitur adversus ipsos cum primis valer Object But the Fathers sly to the Parents or pro-Parents faith when they speak of Infants right to Baptism therefore its plain that they supposed it not in themselves Answ. True By which you may discern that Faith was presupposed as the Evidence of their right to Baptism and its effects that is to Justification and Sanctification and therefore it was such a Faith as had the promise of these effects viz. Justification and Sanctification and therefore not another kind of faith And this faith was supposed to be in the Parent for himself and his seed because the condition or qualification of the Infant is but this that he be the seed of a Believer But then you must note that though they supposed the condition of Right viz. faith to be in the Parent and not in the Infant himself yet they alway affirmed the consequent fruits viz. Regeneration and Justification and Adoption to be in the Infant himself and not in the Parent for him I may answer this therefore in Mr Gatakers words ibid. pag. 65. Resp. 1. Aliud est fides ipsa aliud Regeneratio seu mentis internae renovatio quae sine fidei actu ullo consistere potest 2. Ad fidem Patres alienam adeò confugiunt ubi de parvulorum salute agunt quia fidei alienae beneficio foedere continentur ab Baptismiritum suscipiendum jus obtinent Vid. Bellarm de Bapt. lib. 1. c. 11. Prop. 5. Object But is it a likely thing that the Fathers and Catholick Church should be so blind as to take all for truly justified and regenerate that are baptized Then either they must take all the members of the Visible Church to be such and so be saved or else they must suppose them to fall away from saving grace Answ. 1. The supposition of falling away was too common with them though a few words on the by have fallen from some few of them that seem inconsistent with it 2. They did not take All Collectively to be justified that were baptized and Church-members but All Distributively or each single person 3. And that was onely by that judgement which is grounded on humane faith because they are bound fide humanâ to believe that he is a true believer that professeth himself so to be as all the baptized at age did 4. But when they came 1. to speak of All collectively 2. or of Hypocrites in general 3 or of any that did after discover themselves to have dissembled in Baptism particularly then they declare the uneffectualness of Baptism to those Hypocrites and that they took not all the Visible Church to consist of justified Ones but that the Hypocrites though baptized were but the chaff and the upright were the Wheat But it is but Hypocrites that they say this of and not men that never by themselves or their Parents or Pro-parents did so much as profess the Christian justifying faith but only a faith of another kind And as it is true of the Ancient Church that they never baptized any without the Profession of saving faith and Repentance so it is true of all the Christian Churches in the world that I can hear of to this day The Papists themselves do use the same words in Baptism as are afore expressed and require a Profession in the Parents or pro-Parents or the person if at age that they believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and that they renounce the Flesh the World and the Devil And though their false Doctrine force them to mis-expound their own words yet custom hinders them from changing them And about
the sense they are not agreed among themselves Some of them as is said would have Baptism only necessarily to admit Infants into the visible Church and place them under Government and ordinances and give them ex opere operato a certain preparatory grace Some of them will have it to imprint an indelible Character they know not what and to give them true Sanctification which they call justification by inherent grace Some of them affirm that as to Infant-Baptism the Council of Trent hath not defined whether it justifie or not and therefore it is not de fide And Accordingly some of them make true faith pre-requisite in the Parents and some of them make a certain congruous disposition Meritum de congruo to be pre-requisite but wherein that congruous Merit must consist they know not or are not yet agreed Commonly its thought to be in a fides informis or bare Assent Which Mr. Blake calls a dogmatical Faith conjunct with a reverent esteem of the Sacraments and a consent to become members of the Catholike Church and to be under their Government and use the Ordinances Or a consent in the Parent that the child do these And for the reformed Churches it is past all question by their constant practice that they require the Profession of a saving Christian Faith and take not up with any lower The Practice of the Church of England till the late change may be seen in the Common-prayer-Book wherein all that is forementioned is required The Judgement of the present Guides of our Churches as to the most is easie to be known by the Conclusions of the late Assembly at Westminster In the larger Catechism they say baptism is not to be administred to any that are out of the visible Church and so strangers to the Covenant of promise till they profess their Faith in Christ and obedience to him but Infants descending from Parents either both or but one of them professing faith in Christ obedience to him are in that respect within the covenant and to be baptized Here you may see whom they take to be of the visible Church and in that respect within the covenant 1. The words professing faith in Christ if they were alone do signifie a justifying faith profest For though to believe in Christ may sometime signifie a lower kind of Faith yet analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato 2. But that there may be no doubt of their meaning they add the necessity also of a profession of Obedience to Christ to shew that it is the working faith which must be profest And it is not only a Promise of Obedience for some distant futurity but the Profession of it which they make necessary And I conceive that he that professeth faith in Christ and obedience to him professeth that which will prove saving if he have but what he professeth The same they say in their confesâ—ion of Faith Cap 28. And again in the shorter Catechism Profession of Faith in Christ and obedience to him is the thing required In the Directory also they tell us that Baptism is a seal of the Covenant of Grace of our ingraffing into Christ and of our Vnion with him of remission of sin Regeneration Adoption and Eternal Life that the water in Baptism representeth and signifieth both the blood of Christ which taketh away all guilt of sin original and actual and the sanctifying vertue of the spirit of Christ against the dominion of sin and corruption of our sinful nature That baptizing or sprinkling and washing with water signifieth the cleansing from sin c. That the promise is made to believers and their seed c. And they mean no doubt the promise of the foresaid special mercies for even Mr. Blake himself doth once deny any promise of baptism to be made to the Infants that he pleadeth for And the promise of Justification Adoption c. is made to no believers but those that have justifying faith otherwise than as it is barely offered and so it is to Infidels also They add also in the same place that All who are bapâ—ized in the name of Christ do renounce and by their baptism are bound to fight against the Devil the World and the flesh All this is further manifest in our daily administration of Baptism I never heard any man baptize an Infant but upon the Parents or Susceptors or Offerers Profession of a justifying faith Nor do I believe that Mr. Blake himself doth baptize any otherwise though he dispute against this and for another Baptism The grounds of my conjecture are 1. Because I suppose he is loth to be so singular as to forsake the course of the Church in all ages And therefore I conjecture that he requireth them to profess that they believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and that they renounce the world the Flesh and the Devil 2. Because he so often professeth that he taketh the baptized to be in covenant with God and that this covenant is by them entered in baptism he saith that he knoweth but of one Covenant and that is the covenant of saving grace and that they are presently obliged debetur quovis tempore and therefore it is not only for a distant futurity that they engage themselves And if this be so it is past doubt that they profess a saving faith For the Gospel hath two parts 1. the Narrative or Historie of Christs person and sufferings resurrection c. 2. and the offer of Christ and life to sinners Accordingly Faith hath two parts 1. the Assent to the History or to the truth of the Christian Doctrine and this Mr. Blake maintaineth to be necessary and 2. Consent to the offer And this is called the Receiving of Christ And this is our Internal covenanting which Mr. Blake confesseth necessary For the covenanting of the Heart is this very consent with a resolution for future duty and the covenanting of the mouth is the Expression or Profession of this Consent with a promise of the necessary consequent duty So that though Mr Blake do say pag. 171. that â—ustifying Faith is with him the thing promised and do thrust from him the imputation of such an egregious piece of affâ—cted non-sense as to say that justifying faith is a promise Yet it is not only all the sense that I have of the nature of justifying faith that iâ— is an Assent to the Truth of the Gospel with a consent to the offer or heart-promise to be Christs but it must also be his own sense though disaffected or else he must palpably contradict himself There being no other internal entering or accepting the Covenant or Offer of Grace but by that consent and heart promise 3. And I must also conjecture this because we even now found Mr. Blake denying that ever he denied the necessity of the Profession of a saving faith to baptism But if in my conjectures I be mistaken in Mr. Blakes practice I must say