so others commonly must profess belief before they must be Baptized and the Scripture gives no hint that this is one kinde of Faith and that another Mar. 1.4 shews first in General what John did in the wilderness viz. Baptize and 2. in what order he did it viz. first preaching that Baptism of Repentance to them That 2 Pet. 1.3 is spoken in perfect Logical order It speaks not of Christs order of Execution and our order of Assecution but of Gods and our order of Intention If it had been said that he giveth us glory and vertue it had been a Hysteron Proteron but it is only he called us to glory and vertue And of ends the Ultimate is the first in Intention and all ends are so before their means and therefore may well be so in expression 2. I think as Baptism is truly Medium ad salutem so it may be said to be necessary necessitate medii as well as necessitate praecepti only with a distinction of necessitie according to its Degrees Faith is absolutely necessarie as sine qua non and Baptism is of an inferior less necessitie sometime but ad bene esse solemnitatem Lastly the command foregoing Disciple me all Nations Baptizing them setteth Faith in present or persons at age themselves before Baptism as included in Discipling And if this text which contains the Commission put not Faith before Baptism it s like others do not and then why may noâ— any Hâ—athens that will be baptized and the text speaks but of one faith for ought I can finde §. 48. Mr. Bl. 2. LEt Peter where he speaks of salvation by baptism interpret these words Baptism doth now also saith he save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 3.21 and then explains himself Not the putting away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience towards God this answer or restipulation to the outward administration of Baptism is that which follows upon Baptism but Justifying Faith is that restipulation at least a principal branch of it and therefore there is no necessitie that it go before but a necessitie that it must follow after baptism It is true that in men of years Justifying saith sometimes goes before baptism as in Abraham it went before Circumcision but it is not of necsesity required to Interest us in a Right neither of Baptism nor Circumcision §. 48. R. B. I Will not now stand to enquire of the fitness or unfitness of your term Restipulation as here used Varro useth Restipulari as being the same act as stipulari and Civilians use it but rarely In every stipulation they make two parties the Stipulator which is he that asks the question and the Promiser which is the answerer that obligeth himself Though rarely and unusually also the Promiser be called Stipulator But I suppose it is Responsio Promissoris that you mean by Restipulation and not another Interogation whereby a double stipulation is made supposing this your meaning I Reply 1. Why did you not give us one word for proof that this Restipulation is a thing following Baptism This is too dilute and easie disputing I took the contrary for an unquestionable truth The best Interpreters judge that Peter means here the Answer whereby the Promiser in Baptism did solemnly oblige himself which was to two Questions Credis in Patrem filium spiritum sanctum Credo Abrenuncias Diabolum mundum Carnem Abrenuncio And who knoweth not that these went before the application of the water of which more anon Doth not mutual consent expressed go before the sealing of the Covenant Doth Christ bid us Baptize men into the name of the Father Son and Holy-Ghost and would you have us do this before they profess their consent shall we Baptize them first and ask them whether they believe and consent after 2. I gratefully accept your Concession that Justifying Faith is that Restipulation Which is your minor that is Justifying Faith professed And thence I conclude that then Justifying faith is Essential to the mutual Covenant and so without it God is not thus in Covenant with men For who knows not that ever read Civil Law that there is no stipulation sine Promissione which you call and so do other Divines Restipulation and that this Restipulation is an essential part of the contract called stipulation This being past doubt it follows that Justifying Faith being our Restipulation is an Essential part of the contract or Baptismal Covenant And it is apparant that Peter meant not any other contract which was to be entered between God and man after the Baptismal Contract and different from it for then he would not have said Baptism saveth us and have interpreted it de fidâ responsione vel promissione non de nudâ lotione 3. The Concession which you were forced to about men of years how it doth cut the throat of your cause I shall shew you anon §. 49. Mr. Bl. OBj. 3. That faith to which the promise of Remission and Justification is made it must also be sealed to or that faith which is the condition of the Promise is the condition in foro Dei of the Title to the Seal But it is only solid true faith which is the Condition of the Promise of Remission Therefore it is that only that gives Right in foro Dei to the Seal Answ Here is an argument first proposed 2. in a parenthesis paraphrased For the proposition I say Faith is not sealed to but Remission of sins or salvation upon condition of Faith A professor of Faith that goes no further may engage himself to a lively working Faith and upon those terms God engages for and puts his Seal for Remission and salvation For the parenthesis That faith which is the condition of the Promise is the condition in foro Dei of Title to that Seal I judge the contrary to be undeniable that Faith which is the condition of the Promise is not the condition in foro Dei of Title to the Seal An acknowledgment of the Necessity of such faith with engagement to it is sufficient for a Title to the Seal and the performance of the condition of like necessity to attain the thing sealed To promise service and fidelitie in war is enough to get listed as to do service is of necessity to be rewarded §. 49. R. B. 1. BOth Sacraments rightly used are a mutual Sealing to the mutual Covenant As in the Lords Supper Taking and eating is our Sealing professing action so in Baptism receiving the water applied is our Seal and professing Passion For we are more Passive in our new birth then in our feeding for growth So is the presenting our persons or our children of our delivering them up to Christ as his Disciples It is therefore our part as well as Gods that is Sealed to 2. Where you say A professor of Faith may engage to a lively working Faith you mean either a Professor of that lively faith or a
Professor of a dead not working Faith If the first it is a contradiction to say He professeth to have a lively Faith and He only engageth so to believe hereafter For if he profess to have it already then he can engage only to the Continuation and not the Inception of it If you mean the latter then I shall shew you anon that a man professing a Dead not-working Faith is not in Scripture called to Covenant with God in Baptism to believe lively for the future incepivè and to believe for the future with a working Faith In the mean time this should be proved which yet I never saw You suppose then such a professor as this coming to Baptism saying Lord I believe that Thou art God alone and Christ the only Redeemer and the Holy-Ghost the Guide and Sanctifier of thy people and that the World Flesh and Devil is to be renounced for thee but at present these are so dear to me that I will not forsake them for thee I will not take Thee for my God to Rule me or be my Happiness nor will I take Christ to Govern me and Save me in His way nor will I be Guided or Sanctified by the Holy-Ghost but hereafter I will therefore I come to be Baptized 3. That which you judge undeniable you see I deny It is not therefore de facto undeniable When you and I can each of us attain to such a height of confidence of the Verity of our several Contradictory Propositions in a matter of such moment and about the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ which the Apostle reckoneth as the milk of Babes who are unskilful in the word of Righteousness Heb. 5.12 13 14. and 6.1.2 it encreaseth my conviction of the great necessity of toleration of some great errors even in Preachers of the Gospel For either yours or mine seem such I finde no proof of your undenyable Proposition 1. The Seal is but an affix to the Promise therefore that which is the condition of the Promise is the condition of the Seal 2. The use of the Seal is to confirm the Promise to him to whom it is Sealed Therefore the condition of the Promise is the condition of the Seal 3. If the Promise and Seal have two distinct conditions then there are two distinct Covenants for from the conditions most commonly are contracts specified and therefore Wesenbechius and such like Logical Civilians call it the form of the contract or stipulation to be either Dura vel in diem vel sub conditione and those sub-conditions are specified oft from their various conditions But there is not two Covenants therefore but of this more anon 4. Is it not against the nature and common use of Sealing that it should be in order before the Promise or Covenant and that men should have first right to that Seal on one condition before they have right to the Promise and then have right to the Promise after on another condition 5. If it be so undenyable that that Faith which is the condition of the Promise is not the condition in foro Dei of Title to the Seal as you affirm why do you then build so much against Mr. Tombes on that argument from Act. 2. The Promise is to you and your children arguing a Right to the Seal from an Interest in the Promise 6. Where you say that An acknowledgement of the necessity of such faith with engagement to it is sufficient for a Title to the Seal I Reply then those that at present renounce Christ so it be against their knowledge and conscience and will engage to own him sincerely for the future have right to Baptism A convinced persecutor may acknowledge this necessity and engage that before he dies he will be a true Believer and yet resolve to be no Christian till then no not so much as in profession 7. Your instance of service fidelitie in war runs upon the great mistake which I have so often told you of The formal Reason and denomination of a condition is from the Donors constitution or imposition giving his benefits only on the terms by himself assigned and not from our Promise to perform them And therefore our Promise it self is the chief condition of Gods Promise and to speak as your self did Our Justifing faith being our Restipulation that Restipulation is not only part of our condition but the whole as to our first Right to Christ Justification and Salvation though that Right shall not be continued nor we actually glorified but on condition both of continuing that faith and of adding if there be opportunitie sincere obedience in perseverance to the death §. 50. Mr. Bl. 4. AS for the argument ad hominem framed against those who make initial or common faith sufficient to entitle to Baptism and yet affix Remission of sins to all Baptism even so received without any performance of further engagement I leave to them to defend who maintain such Doctrine and to speak to the Absurdities that follow upon it §. 50. R. B. THough you avoid the dint of this argument by forsaking Dr. Ward here yet it may perhaps appear that your own way is clogged with more Absurdities then a few §. 51. Mr. Bl. 5. THat of Philip to the Eunuch seems to carry most colour The Eunuch must believe with all his heart before he must be baptized and I have known it trouble some that are fully convinced that a Dogmatical faith gives title to baptism satisfying themselves with this answer that howsoever Philip called for such a faith which leads to salvation yet did not express himself so far that no faith short of this gives title to baptism It may be answered that a Dogmatical faith is true faith suo genere as well as that which Justifieth therefore I know not why men should give it the term of false Faith seeing Scripture calls it Faith and such as those Believers and the heart in such a Faith as to an entire assent is required If we look into the Eunuchs answer in which Philip did rest satisfied and proceeded upon it to baptism it will take away all scruple his answer is I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God There is no more in that then a common Faith this is believed by men not justified yet this Faith entitles to baptism and upon this confession of Faith the Eunuch is baptized §. 51. R. B. THat will not trouble you which troubleth others To your answer I Reply 1. When we do with the Scriptures enquire after Faith in Christ crucified we may well call that a false Faith which pretends to be this and is not this however true in suo genere Faith in Jupiter Sol Mahomet is true in suo genere and so is humane Faith yet I would call it a false Faith if this should be pretended to be Faith in Christ To believe in Christ as man only or as God only or as a Guide to Heaven only and
tuum est id est fidem in eum subjectionem percipies ejus artem eris perfectum Dei opus si autem non credideris ei fugeris manus ejus erit Causa in te c. Ille enim misit qui vocarent ad Nuptias qui autem non obedierunt ei semetipsos privarunt regiâ caenâ 3. Athenagoras in Legat. pro Christianis p. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nullus enim Christianus 〈◊〉 est nisi â—anc professionem simulaverit He therefore that only professeth is but a counterfeit Christian and he that professeth any thing lower then Holyness or an obediential Faith doth profess somewhat short of Christianity and not Christianity it self 4. Tertullian Apolog. cap. 44. Speaking how the Heathens were fain to punish one another in Prisons and houses of Corrections addes Nemo illic Christianus nisi plane tantum Christianus aut si aliud jam non Christianus No Christian comes there unless meerly because he is a Christian or if otherwise i. e. as a wicked liver then he is no Christian And de Baptismo he saith cap. 6. Ita angelus baptismi arbiter superventuro spiritui sancto vias dirigit ablutione delictorum quam fides impetrat obsignata in Patre Filio spiritu sancto Many places might be cited in him that shew they took the Baptized for justified Believers 5. Cyprian Epist 23. Nam cum Dominus dixerit in nomine Patris Filii Spiritus sancti gentes tingi in Baptismo praeterita peccata dimitti c. And Epist 2. § 2. Sed postquam unde genitalis auxilio superioris aevi labe detersa in expiatum pectus ac purum desuper se lumen infudit postquam caelitus spiritu hausto in novum me hominem Nativitas Secunda reparavit c. But it is so well known a Case that Antiquity runs wholly this way that I think I may spare the labor of transcribing any more I had at hand the full testimonies of Clemens Alexand. Origen Epiphanius Athanasius Lactantius Nazianzen Nyssen Basil Cyril of Alexandria Cyril of Jerusalem Synesius Hierom Macarius Eusebius with divers others which I now cast by as tedious and unnecessary but shall produce quickly if I once finde it of any use Yet two or three brief ones I will add which shew that it is the Covenanting or Professing of true Obedience and consequently of a lively working Faith that is required and not the profession of an unsound faith only 6. Nazianzen Orat. 40. p. 641. vol. 1. Edit Morel saith For to summe up all in a word we ought to judge that the force and faculty of Baptism is nothing else but a Covenant entered with God for or a Promise made to God of a Second Life or a new Life and a more pure course of living And therefore that we shall all exceedingly fear and with all diligence keep our Souls lest we be found to have violated this Covenant And doubtless to enter such a Covenant sincerely is the work of a Faith not short of justifying and therefore it is justifying Faith which in Baptism is professed and thereto required 7. Basil Amph. c. 9. As we believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost so are we Baptized into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost And Confession as Captain leads the way to salvation and Baptism sealing up our Promise or Covenant followeth It is then a Seal of our Promise as well as of Gods 8. Chrysostom Tom. 5. Homâ—l ad Neoph. Would we did answerably go on and those Symbols and Covenants wherewith we are bound did stick in our hearts we have confessed Christs Government we have renounced the Devils Tyrannie This Hand-writing this Covenant this Symbol we are taught is conscribed See that we be not again found Debtors to this hand-writing 9. Hierom Dial advers Lucif saith again and again that Baptisma non est nullum est sine spiritu sancto which saying though I approve not yet that and many more passages in that Dialogue fully shew his judgement in this point 10. Salvian de Gubern l. 4. initio saith Nam cum hoc sit hominis Christiani fides fideliter Christi mandata servare fit absque dubio ut nec fidem habeat qui infidelis est nec Christum credat qui Christi mandata conculcat Ac per hoc totum in id revolvitur ut qui Christiani nominis opus non agit Christianus non esse videatur Nomen enim sine actu atque officio suo nihil est Et lib. 3. p. 66. Quid est igitur Credulitas vel fides opinor fideliter hominem Christo credere id est fidelem Deo esse hoc est fideliter Dei mandata servare pag. 67. Infidelis sit necesse est qui fidei commissa non servat Argu. 3. If it be required in Baptism that men do sincerely promise for the future to Believe savingly and to obey Christ sincerely then Iustifying Faith is required in Baptism But the Antecedent is acknowledged by Mr. Bl. except the word sincerely He yieldeth that men must in Baptism engage to do this hereafter Now I would know of him whether God require them to make this engagement seriously sincerely firmato animo or not If not then God calls them but to Dissemble which is not true If yea then I say This is justifying Faith it self or at least comes from it if it be a Promise to do this presently without delay For he that will heartily engage himself to obey Christ as his Soveraign and rest on him for salvation must needs be resolved so to do But he that is so resolved is a true Believer For his will is sanctified or else he could not be thus resolved But if it be only for so long time hence that a man promiseth to believe and obey sincerely with a reserve and resolution to live wickedly till then I hope few will believe that this is the condition of Baptism or the true Baptismal Covenant Argu. 4. They that are to Renounce the World Flesh and Devil are to be true believers to justification but they that are to be baptized are then to Renounce the World Flesh and Devil therefore c. The major is evident in that renounceing these is a renounceing them as Rulers that would command us before God or as worldly fleshly pleasures or profits might seem our chief good to be preferred before God Now it is none but the sincere believer that can so renounce these All others are servants to them and make them their end The Minor is proved thus 1. There can be no motus to the Terminus ad quem but there must also be a Terminus à quo The World Flesh and Devil are the Terminus à quo without which we cannot be said to take God for our God or Christ for our Lord-Redeemer 2. De facto this Abrenunciation hath been used in the Churches Baptism ever since the Apostles days as
no duty though it be their duty still to get Faith first and then to profess it The minor is proved already in the foregoing arguments and more shall be anon It is no less then justifying Faith that Christs Church hath ever to this day required the Baptized to profess before the application of the water To believe in God the Father Son and Holy-Ghost and profess Repentance for all sins and to renounce the world the flesh and Devil c. And when Mr. Bl. maketh profession enough to give Right to baptism I would know whether he mean the profession of Justifying-Faith or not If yea then Justifying Faith is prerequisite or else the profession of it could not If not then the profession of true Christianity is not requisite but of some part of it For as I have shewed it is not the true Christian Faith but some part of it only if it be short of that Faith which is justifying And let men say no more that profession is it that entitles to Baptism without the thing professed when they take even profession it self of true Christianitie to be consequential and not prerequisite Argu. 11. If Baptism be the solemnizing of the mystical marriage between Christ and the baptized then true justifying Faith is of God required thereto but the Antecedent is true therefore Therefore is it said that we are baptized into Christ and into one body And the Church hath ever held the Antecedent to be true The consequence is evident in that no man but the sound believer can truly take Christ as a Husband and Head for so to do is justifying Faith It is Christ himself first in order and then his benefits that are offered in the Sacraments The main business of them is to exhibite Christ himself to be received by a marriage Covenanting The signs are but means and instruments as a twig and turfe and Key in giving possession When the minister in Christs name saith Take Eat c. it is not only bread that he bids men take but first and principally Christ by Faith Joahimus Vadianus Aphorism de Eucharist li. 3. pag. 82. much commendeth a saying of Chrysostoms viz. If thou hadst no body then Christ would have delivered thee all these gifts nakedly or immediately but because thy Soul is conjoyned with a body he hath delivered them in and with these sensible things It is one of the greatest errors that can be committed in the Sacraments to overlook Chirst himself who is offered and to look only either to the signs or to his other gifts We receive him first as our Saviour our Soveraign Redeemer our Head our Husband our Captain and Guide He therefore that comes to these ordinances doth pretend thus to receive Christ and doubtless to receive him thus sincerely is true jusâ—â—â—â—ing saying Faith and therefore it is saving Faith that is called for to the due Receiving of the Sacraments And doubtless God means a sincere and not a seeming dissembled nominal Faith in his command Argu. 12. If there be no such Covenanâ— mentioned in the Scripture specially to be sealed with baptism wherein men engage themselves to perform hereafter their first act of true Repentance and justifying Faith then Mr. Blakes Doctrine is unsound but there is no such Covenant therefore Men are oft in Scripture called to Repent and Believe but nowhere that I know of to Covenant with God that they will hereafter begin to do it sincerely much less is there such a Covenant sealed with Baptism They that affirm such a thing let them prove it if they can Argu. 13. If according to Mr. Blakes Doctrine no true sound Believer or Penitent person can regularly be baptized then his Doctrine is unsound But the Antecedent is true therefore The consequence is proved before The Antecedent is proved thus According to his Doctrine saving Faith accepting Christ to Justification is the great condition to which Baptism engageth and is not prerequisite therein Therefore he that already performeth that condition is past such engageing to do it initially hereafter and so hath no use for baptism as to that engagement to the great condition so that if such a person be baptized it must be to other ends then the Ordinance is appointed for and so not Regularly The like may be said of Gods part for to such a Believer God should Seal Remission past or present whereas according to Mr. Bl. the Ordinance is instituted to seal Remission future Argu. 14. If the Doctrine opposed be true then the Gospel preached before baptism was not instituted nor is to be used as a means at least an ordinary means of saving conversion i. e. of producâ—ng saving Faith and Repentance But the consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent It would be tedious and needless to the Intelligent to heap up Scripture proof of the minor viz. that the Gospel preached before baptism is appointed for an ordinary means of working true conversion We see it was ordinarily done else Preachers could not endeavor it or hope or pray for it The consequence is manifest in that Mr. Bl. makes this true justifying Faith and consequently true Repentance to be not prerequisite to baptism but to be engaged for as to the future performance And therefore regularly it must be only the word after Baptism that must truly Convert or not at all Argu. 15. If Mr. Blakes Doctrine be true then regularly it must be supposed that all persons are in a state of damnation immediately on their baptism and if they then dyed should perish But the consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent For the Consequence if Mr. Blake mean that it is any space of time after baptism that we engage to begin our justifying Faith in then the consequence is undenyable for till then the person is unjustified But if he mean that in baptism they must engage to believe to Justification in the same instant of time then this is to make such Faith necessary in the instant of baptism and this is but an evident vanity to suppose a man not believing to justification who yet can and must promise to do it in the same instant or the next Argu. 16. If it be only true justifying Faith that gives men right coram Deo by vertue of his Covenant to the Sacrament of the Lords Supâ—â—r and so be prerequisite to that Sacrament and not only to be promised for â—he future then the same may be said of baptism But the Antecedent is true therefore The consequence is proved 1. In that the Sacraments are both Seals of the same Covenant 2. It is right to Church-priviledges in general that Mr. Bl. ascribes to his Dogmatical Faith and therefore to one Sacrament as well as the other For the Antecedent I think our brethren that would so fain keep the Church and Ordinances pure would hardly admit a man to the Lords Table that they were sure did not take Christ for his Lord or that would say I
are a sincere Believer then you have that All sincere Believers are Justified I have not for my part But it seems by your following words that you have or suppose others to have to which I say 3. If you have as evidently concluded that Faith is in your heart saving Faith as that Reason is in your Soul know your self to be a Believer as evidently as you know your self to be a man then your Conclusion may be denominated to be de fide as a parte delibiore But if this be not your case it is most fit for all the mixt interest of the Premises to say that it is not de fide but from the knowledge of your sincerity in the Faith as a parte debiliore And if it be your case indeed you are the happiest man that ever I yet spake with But I know that no man ordinarily can have such evidence of his sincerity yet because I will not speak of you or others by my self nor judge others hearts to be as bad as my own or as all those that I have conversed with we will if you please thus comprimize the difference All those whose evidence of sinceritie is as cleer as the evidence of their Reason and manhood yea or more then Scripture evidence so that Gods Testimony is pars debilior in the Syllogism these shall take the Conclusion that they are Justified to be de fide and all the rest shall take the Conclusion to be not de fide but from the knowledge of themselves and then let the issue shew whether more will be of your mind or of mine I think this a fair Agreement §. 70. Mr. Bl. OTherwise saith he every man rightly Receiving the Seals must needs certainly be Justified and saved I see no danger in yielding this Conclusion every man rightly receiving and improving the seals must be saved and Justified He that rightly receives the seals receives Christ in the seals and receiving Christ he receives salvation So he that rightly hears Hear and your Souls shall live Isa 55. So he that rightly prayes Whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved Rom. 10. §. 70. R. B. 1. BY Rightly I meant having Right to it and that only in foro Ecclesiae and not Rectè But I confess I should have plainlyer exprest my meaning 2. â—hether you here contradict not your Doctrine of Baptismal Faith where you suppose Justifying Faith to be the thing promised by us in Baptism and therefore not prerequisite in it I leave you to judge and resolve as by your explication §. 71. Mr. Bl. ANd no man can groundedly administer the Sacrament to any but himself because he can be certain of no mans Justification and Salvation Vpon the same terms that he knows any man may be saved upon the same he may give him the Sacrament sealing this salvation This argument as we heard before is Bellarmines and concludes indeed against Absolute seals in the Sacrament but not against Conditional sealing as is confessed by Protestant Divines §. 71. R. B. 1. I know it not to be true of any man that he shall be saved therefore I may not seal it to any by your Concession God-Seals to no falshood I know not whether it be true or false that A. B. shall be saved Yet it is on some of the Opposers principles that I now argue 2. I desire you not to answer it as Bellarmines argument but as mine seeing you choose me to deal with 3. The Argument makes as much against my asserting the Truth of your Conclusion as the sealing it so that let your sealing be Conditional or none at all I may not so much as affirm to any man whose heart I know not the Conclusion which you say I must seal The Conclusion is Absolute Thou A. B. art Justified and shalt be saved though the Major Proposition or or Universal Grant be conditional Now if you will Seal this Absolute Conclusion conditionally then 1. you will sin in the bare affirming it a true Conclusion before you seal it if you go but so fat 2. What is the Condition that you mean I suppose true Faith But if so then where there is not true Faith thete you do not Actually seal For a Conditional sealing is not Actual sealing till the condition be performed for the condition not performed suspends the act And then you have mistaken in thinking that the Covenant is sealed actually to the unregenerate or ungodly But if you mean any thing short of true Faith how can you on that condition seal to any man that he is Justified and shall be saved I do therefore rather choose to say If thou Believe thou shalt be saved and thus as contained in the general Grant I absolutely seal then to say Thou shalt be saved and this I seal if thou Believe Though I say again I make a small matter of this and suppose your meaning and mine is the same for all these words 4. Where you say It concludes an Absolute sealing I say No if it be but to a Conditional Grant and if Absolute Exhibition or Collation be not added to absolute sealing §. 72. Mr. Bl. MR Baxter adds I am sorry to see what advantage many of our most learned Divines have given the Papists here as one error draws on many and leadeth a man into a Labyrinth of Absurdities being first mistaken in the nature of Justifying Faith thinking it consists in a belief of the pardon of my own sins which is the Conclusion have therefore thought that this is it which the Sacrament sealeth And when the Papists alledge that it is nowhere written that such or such a man is Justified we answer them that it being written that He that Believeth is justified this is equivalent But Mr. Baxteâ— doubtless knows that many Divines who are out of that error concerning the nature of Justifying Faith and have learned to distinguish between Faith in the Essence of it and Assurance yet are confidently perswaded that the Sacrament seals this Conclusion knowing that the Sacrament sealeth what the Covenant promiseth to the persons in Covenant and upon the same terms as the Covenant doth promise it Now the Covenant promiseth forgiveness of sins as Mr. Baxter confesses conditionally and this to all in Covenant and this the Sacrament sealeth §. 72. R. B. 1. IF there be any that mistake but in one of those points when others mistake in them all those are not the men meant that I speak of I intended not every man that held your opinion but only those that held it on the ground and with the worser consequent or defence which I expressed 2. I shall know whom you mean when I see the Authors and place in them cited 3. I think most of our great transmarine Divines who write of it against the Papists do own that which you acknowledge an error and what advantage that will give the Papists who are so ready to take a Confutation of one
THE CONTENTS THe Prologue to Mr. Blake pag. 1 Certain Distinctions and Propositions explaining my sense How Christ as King is the Object of Justifying Faith § 1. pag. 3 Ten Arguments proving that Christ as King and Head is the object of the Justifying Act of Faith § 1. pag. 3 4 The common Distinction between Fides Quae and Fides Quâ Justificat examined § 1. pag. 7 The danger of the contrary Doctrine § 1. pag. 8 The former Doctrine defended against Mr. Blakes Exceptions § 1. pag. 9 The same defended against more of his Exceptions and the faith Heb. 11 explained § 2. pag. 10 James 2. about Justification by works explained and vindicated § 3. pag. 12 How far works Justifie § 3 4. pag. 14 15 Why I wrote against the Instrumentality of Faith in Justifying § 5. ibid Ethical Active improper Receiving distinguished from Physical Passive proper Receiving § 5. pag. 17 How Christ dwels in us by Faith § 5. ibid Mr. Bl's Exceptions against my opposition of Faiths Instrumentality in Receiving Christ considered § 6. pag. 18 Mr. Bl's dangerous Doctrine That God is not the sole efficient nor any Act of God the sole Instrument of Justification § 7 8. pag. 19 Mr. Bl's contradiction that faith is the Instrument of man and yet man doth not Justifie himself § 9. pag. 20 Whether Faith be both Gods Instrument and mans in Justification § 10. pag. 21 Further how Christ is said to Dwell in us by Faith § 10. pag. 22 The common opinion of Faiths Instrumentality opened and the Truth further explained § 11. pag. 23 More of Mr Bl's reasoning on this confuted § 12. pag. 27 Whether God make use of our Faith as his Instrument to Justifie us § 13 pag. 28 Whether the Covenant of God be his Instrument of Justification § 14. pag. 28 Mr. Bl's arguing against the Instrumentality of the Promise confuted § 15 16. pag. 29 Mr. Bl's dangerous Doctrine confuted that the Efficacy that is in the Gospel to Justification it receives by their Faith to whom it is tendred § 17 18. pag. 30 Whether Mr. Bl say truly that the word hath much less an Influx to the producing of the Effect by a proper Causality then faith § 19. pag. 31 In what way of Causality the word worketh § 20. pag. 32 Whether the word be a Passive Instrument § 21 pag. 33 Mr. Bl's strange Doctrine examined that the word is a Passive Instrument of Justification § 22 23. pag. 34 More against Mr. Bl's Doctrine that Faith through the Spirit gives efficacy and power of working to the Gospel in forgiving sins § 24. pag. 35 Fuller proof of the most proper Instrumentality of the Gospel in Justification § 25. pag. 36 Mr. Bl. Contradiction in making Faith and the Gospel two Instruments both making up one compleat Instrument § 25. pag. 37 More against Mr. Bl. strange doctrine that Faith gives efficacy as an Instrument to the word § 25. pag. 37 A Condition what and how differing from meer Duty § 27. pag. 38 The difference between us compromized or narrowed § 27 pag. 40 Of Evangelical personal Righteousness § 28. pag. 41 What Righteousness is § 28. pag. 43 In what sense our personal Righteousness is Imperfect and perfect § 28 pag. 44 Isa 64.6 explained Our Righteousness is as filthy rags § 29. pag. 46 How Holiness is perfect or Imperfect § 30. pag. 47 Whether Holiness or Righteousnes be capable neither of perfection nor Imperfection but in relation to a Rule § 31 32. pag. 48 Concerning my charging learned Divines with Ignorance and other harsh speeches § 33. pag. 49 We are not denominated personally righteous for our conformity to the Law of works only or properly proved § 33. pag. 50 Whether as Mr. Bl. saith the old Rule the Moral Law be a perfect Rule and the only Rule § 33. pag. 51 A Vindication of the Author from the imputation of Arrogance for charging some Divines with Ignorance § 33. pag. 49 Whether Imperfect Conformity to the Law be Righteousness as an Image less like the patern is an Image § 35. pag. 54 How fairly Mr. Bl. chargeth me to say Sincerity is the New Rule § 36 pag. 55 An Answer to Davenants Testimony cited by Mr. Bl. § 37. pag. 56 How far Vnbelief and Impenitency in professed Christians are violations of the New Covenant § 38. pag. 57 How many sorts of Promises or Covenants there are in Scripture mentioned § 39. pag. 58 How far Hypocrites and wicked men are or are not in Covenant with God in several Propositions § 39. pag. 60 An enquiry into Mr. Bl's meaning of Dogmatical faith and being in Covenant § 39. pag. 64 Of the Outward Covenant as they call it and how far the Vnbelievers or Hypocrites may have right to Baptism and other Ordinances § 39. ibid Mr Bl's Absurdities supposed to follow the restraint of the Covenant to the Elect considered § 41. pag. 80 Our own Covenanting is the principal part of the Condition of Gods promise or Covenant of Grace § 41. pag. 81 Whether I make the Seal of Baptism and of the Spirit to be of equal latitude § 42. pag. 84 Mr. Bl's dangerous argument answered The great Condition to which Baptism engageth is not a prerequisite in Baptism But Justifying Faith is such Therefore § 43. ibid More of Mr. Bl's Arguments answered § 44 45. pag. 86 My Arguments Vindicated from Mr. Bl's Exception § 46. to 52. pag. 88 26 Arguments to prove that it is Justifying faith which God requires of them that come to Baptism and that Mr. Bl's doctrine in this is unsound and unsafe § 52. pag. 94 Of Mr. Bl's Controversie with Mr. Firmin § 53. pag. 107 My asserting of the Absolute promise of the first Grace vindicated § 55 pag. 108 Whether our Faith and Repentance be Gods works § 55. pag. 109 What Life was promised to Adam in the first Covenant § 56. pag. 111 Of the Death threatned by the first Covenant § 57. pag. 112 Whether the Death of the body by separation of the soul were determinately threatned § 58. pag. 113 Of the Law as made to Christ § 59. pag. 115 Whether the Sacrament seal the Conditional promise Absolutely or the Conclusion I am Justified and shall be saved Conditionally § 60 61 62 63. pag. 115 The Nature of sealing opened § 64. pag. 118 20 Propositions shewing how God sealeth § 64. pag. 119 That the minor being sealed the Conclusion is not eo nomine sealed as Mr. Bl. affirmeth § 65. pag. 123 How Sacraments seal with particular Application § 67. pag. 125 Mr. Bl's doctrine untrue that If the Conclusion be not sealed then no Proposition is sealed § 68. pag. 126 Whether it be Virtually written in Scripture that Mr. Bl. is Justified § 69. pag. 126 More about Condiâ—ional sealing § 70 71. pag. 128 Whether it is de fide that Mr. Bl. is Justified § 72 73 74. pag. 129 In what sense we deny
that Conclusion to be de fide § 75. pag. 133 That Divine Faith hath Evidence as well as Certainty Rob. Baronius and Rada's words to the contrary examined § 75. pag. 134 The difference between Mr. Bl. and me contracted and a plain â—ogent Argument added to prove that the Conclusion fore-mentioned is not sealed § 76. pag. 139 The possibility but vanity of Conditional sealing § 77. pag. 140 More of Mr. Bl's Reasons answered § 78 to 81. pag. 141 The danger of teaching men that they are bound to believe that they are Justified and shall be saved § 81. pag. 142 In what sense the Covenant commandeth perfect obedience § 82. pag. 144 Mr. Bl's Reasons examined concerning the Covenants commanding perfection § 82 to 91. pag. 144 How far true believers are Covenant-breakers § 84. pag. 148 The Covenant is Gods Law § 91. pag. 152 The Conclusion Apologetical against the charge of singularity § 92. pag. 152 The Prologue MY Reverend and dearly beloved Brother I remember that when I met you last at Shrewsbury you told me that you had sent to the Presse a Treatise of the Covenants and desired me not to be offended if you published in it some things against my Judgement Your Treatise is since come to my hands and upon a brief perusall of some part of it I am bold to let you know this much of my thoughts 1. That I very much value and honour your Learned Labours and had I been Mr Vines or Mr Fisher I might rather have given in some respects a higher commendations of your Book And especially I love it for its sound discoveries of the Vanity of the Antinomians 2. So farre am I from being offended at your Writing against my Writings that as I have oft said concerning Mr Owen since I saw his Book against me even so do I by you I never honoured you so much though much nor loved you so dearly though dearly before as since for I see more of your worth then I saw before For where I erre why should I be offended with any brother for loving Gods Truth and mens souls above my Errours or any seeming Reputation of mine that may be ingaged in them and for seeking to cure the hurt that I have done God forbid that I should seek to maintain a Reputation obtained by or held in an opposition to the Truth I take all my Errors in Theology even in the highest revealed points participaliter to be my sinnes but especially my divulged Errors And I take him for my best friend that is the greatest enemy to my sins And where I erre not I have little cause for my own sake to be offended at your opposition For as you are pleased to honour me too highly both in your Epithetes and tender dealing yea in being at so much pains with any thing of mine and in stooping to a publick opposition of that which you might have thought more worthy of your contempt so I know you did it in a zeal for God and Truth and you thought all was Error that you opposed so that in the general we fight under one Master and for one Cause and against one Enemy You are for Christ 1. For Truth and against Errors so farre as you know it and so am I. I know you wrote not against Me but against my Errors reall or supposed And truly though I would not be shamelesse or impenitent nor go so far as Seneca to say we should not object a common fault to singular persons Vid. Cor. de Irâ l. 3. c. 26. p. mihi 452. no more then to reproach a Blackmore with his colour yet I see so much by the most Learned and Judicious to assure me that humanum est errare and that we know but in part that I take it for no more dishonour to have the world know that I erre then for them to know that I am one of their Brethren a son of Adam and not yet arrived at that blessed state where that which is childish shall cease and all that is imperfect shall be done away Only if my Errors be greater then ordinary I must be humbled more then ordinary as knowing that my sin is the cause that I have no greater illumination of the Spirit I have truly published to the world my indignation against the proud indignation of those men that account him their enemy that shall publiquely contradict them 2. Yet must I needs tell you that in the points which you contradict I finde no great alteration upon my understanding by your Writings whether it be from the want of evidence of truth in your Confutation or through the dulnesse of my Apprehension I hope I shall better be able to judge when I have heard from you next I think I may safely say It is not from an unwillingness to know the Truth And one further difference there is in our Judgements For my Judgement is that it is not so convenient nor safe a way to publish suddenly a reply to your opposition as to tell you my thoughts privately seeing we live so near and to bring the Points in difference by friendly collations to as narrow a compass as we can and make as clear a discovery of each others meanings as may be and then by joynt consent to tell the world our several Judgements and our Reasons as lovers of the Truth and of each other that so others may have the benefit of our friendly Collations and Enquiries and may be thereby advantaged for the more facile discovery of the Truth Truly I would have all such Controversies so handled that all the vain altercations might lye in the dust in our studies and that which is published might be in one Volume friendly subscribed by both parties In this I perceive by your practise your Judgement differs from mine and that you rather judge it fittest to speak first by the Presse that the world may hear us I crave your acceptance of these Papers rather in this private way and that you will signifie to me in what way I shall expect your return wherein I think it fitter you please your self then me I shall faithfully give you an account of the effect of your Arguments on my weak understanding but not in the order as they lye in your Book but I will begin with those Points which I judge to be of greatest moment §. 1. Mr Blake Treat of Covenants pag. 79. IT is also true that faith accepts Christ as a Lord as well as a Saviour But it is the Acceptation of him as a Saviour not as a Lord that Justifies Christ Rules his People as a King Teacheth them as a Prophet but makes Atonement for them only as a Priest by giving himself in Sacrifice his blood for Remission of sins These must be distinguished but not divided Faith hath an eye at all the blood of Christ the command of Christ the doctrine of Christ but as it lies and fastens on his blood so it Justifies
with men of saith not saving he doth me wrong For in the properest sense i. e. as if God were actually as it were obliged to such in the Covenant of Grace I never said it But how far such are in Covenant or under promise I have by necessary distinction explained before and I think it beseems not a serious Treatise of the Covenants wherein this Question is so largely of purpose handled to have confounded those several considerations and dispute so seriously before the Reader can tell about what The words which Mr. Bl. questioneth I confess are mine against Dr. Ward and I did not think in so gross an opinion Dr. Ward would have found any second to undertake that cause §. 40. Mr. Bl. 1. ALL that hath been said for the latitude of the Covenant may sitly be applyed in opposition to this Tenent for the like latitude of Baptism §. 40. R. B. THerefore did I say the more of the Covenant before to shew your confusion and mistake in that It is not every Covenant or Promise that Baptism is the Seal of §. 41. Mr. Bl. ALL the Absurdities following the restraint of the Covenant to the Elect to men of faith saving and justifying follow upon this restraint of interest in Baptism §. 41. R. B. WHat Absurdities follow such a restraint of it to sound believers as I have asserted I should be willing to know though with some labor I searched for it Bear with me therefore while I examine what you refer me to It is pag. 209. where you charge those Absurdities And the first is this 1. This restriction of the Covenant to shut out all the non-regenerate makes an utter confusion between the Covenant it self and the conditions of it or if the expression do not please the Covenant it self and the duties required in it between our entrance into Covenant and our observation of it or walking up in faithfulness to it All know that a bargain for a summe of money and the payment of that summe the covenant with a servant for labor and the labor according to this covenant are different things Faithful men that make a bargain keep it enter covenant and stand to it But the making and keeping the entering and observing are not the same and now according to this opinion Regeneration is our entrance into Covenant and Regeneration is our keeping of Covenant before Regeneration we make no Covenant after Regeneration we break no Covenant there is no such thing as Covenant-breaking All this makes an utter confusion in the Covenant Reply 1. I have seldom met with a complaint of confusion more unseasonably where the guilt of it in the plaintiffe is so visible as to marr all the work so much 2. I cannot give my judgment of the intolerableness and great danger of your mistake here manifested without unmannerliness I will therefore say but this It is in a very weightie point neer the foundation wherein to erre cannot be safe In my Aphorisms I gave my reasons pag. 265 for the contrarie It is a truth so far beyond all doubt that our own Covenanting is a principal part of the condition of the Covenant of Grace as that it is in other terms a great part of the substance of the Gospel 1. The conditions are imposed by God and to be performed by us the same act therefore is called our conditions as the performers and Gods conditions as the Imposer and Promiser giving his blessings onely on these imposed conditions Most properly they are called the conditions or Gods Covenant or Promise rather then of ours for our own Promise is the first part of them and our performance of that Promise but a secondary part For 2. Gods Covenant is a free gift of Christ and Life to the world on condition of their Acceptance this our Divines against the Papists on the Doctrine of merit have fully proved Onely this Acceptance must have these necessary modifications which may constitute it sutable to the quality of the object and state of the receiver It must be a Loving Thankfull Acceptance and it being the Acceptance of a Soveraign and Sanctifier it contains a Resolution to obey him Our Acceptance or Consent is our Covenanting and our faith So that our Covenanting with Christ and our faith is the same thing that is our accepting an offered Saviour on his terms Or a Consent that he be ours and we his on his terms And who knows not that this Faith or Covenanting or Consent is the condition by us to be performed that we may have right to Christ and Life offered 3. Indeed there is herewith joyned a promise for future duty but mark 1. what 2. and to what end 1. It is principally but a promise of the same consent to be continued which we already give and secondarily a promise of sincere obedience 2. It is not that these future promised acts shall be the condition of our first Justification or right to Christ but onely the condition of the continuance of our Justification it being certainly begun and we put into a state of favor and acceptance meerly on our first consent or covenanting that is believing or receiving Christ That all this is no strange thing that our own Covenant Act should be also the Primary condition of Gods Covenant may appear by your forementioned similitudes and all other cases wherein such Relations are contracted If a King will offer his Son in marriage to a condemned woman and a beggar on condition that she will but have him that is consent and so covenant and marry him here her covenanting consenting or marrying him is the performance of the condition on her part for obtaining her first Right in him and his but for the continuance of that Right is further requisite Primarily the continuance of that consent secondarily the addition of subjection and marriage-faithfulness Yet though consent begun and consent continued be both called consent and are the same thing it is only the beginning that is called marriage so is it only begun faith which is our marriage with Christ and constitutes us Regenerate or converted And therefore you do not well to talk of Regeneration being the keeping of our Covenant If by Regeneration you mean not Gods Act but our repenting and believing then it is our keeping Gods Covenant by performing the condition i. e. Our obeying him in entering his Covenant but it is not the keeping of our own Covenant for our making or entering Covenant is our principal condition on performance whereof we are justified yet in so doing we promise to continue that consent or faith and so the continuance is our Covenant-keeping As for your instances of the Covenant of paying money and doing work had I used such instances what should I have heard from those men that already charge me with giving too much to works in â—ustification you should have considered that our Covenant 1. is not principally to pay and to labor but to receive 2.
absolutely Given I should easily have granted it for it is Given on condition of Receiving and even a sealed Grant may be uneffectual to Conveyance through the interposition of the Dissent and Rejection of him that should receive But you adde for the confirmation of the major None can miss of that which God Absolutely Granteth and Absolutely sealeth Reply 1. But what is this to your major was there any mention of Absolute Granting This is somewhat a large Addition 2. And what is this to the question between you and me You know and acknowledge that I say It is the Conditional Grant that is Absolutely sealed why then do you dispute against Absolute Granting and Sealing This is loss of time to the best of your Readers and for the worst it may make them think my opinion is clean contrary to my own profession §. 65. Mr. Bl. OR in case the Soul frame any Argumentation I suppose it is to be conceived to this purpose If God give me Christ he will give me Justification and Salvation by Christ but God gives me Christ therefore he will give me Justification and Salvation The major is supposed not sealed the minor is there sealed The Elements being tendred by the Minister in Gods stead and received with my hand I am confirmed that God gives Christ to my Faith And the minor being sealed the Conclusion eo nomine is sealed The proof of any proposition in a Syllogism is in order to the proof of the Conclusion and so the sealing of any proposition is in order to the sealing of the Conclusion which indeed Mr. Baxter grants where he sayes that the Proposition that God sealeth to runs thus If thou do believe I do pardon thee and will save thee Yet several passages in that Discourse are I confess beyond my weak apprehension §. 65. R. B. 1. TO your Argument there needs no more to be said then is said to the former When God hath in one Deed of Gift bestowed on us Christ and Life Remission Justification Adoption c. 1 Joh. 5.10 11 12. Joh. 1.11 12. it must be in case of great ignorance that the person that knows that God giveth him Christ must yet be constrained by after arguings to acknowledge that he giveth him Justification And how this argument tends to explain the nature of Sacramental sealing I neither know nor see any thing here to help me to know If you will suppose such an Argument as this used for Application I would not stick to yield it useful What God doth by his Testament give to all men on condition they will Accept it that he gives to me on condition I will Accept it But he gives Christ and Life in him to all men if they will Accept it therefore to me Or if you will say to all that hear the Gospel Though the use of such an Argument is more for lively Application then confirmation of the Truth of the Grant 2. Your supposition that your minor is sealed and not your major hath enough said to it 3. The Sacraments may confirme your faith in Christ as given to you otherwise then by sealing viz. as they are signs for Remembrance Excitation to sense and lively apprehensions of Gods Donation and as they are signs instrumental in sole Conveyance of the benefit Given as a twig and a turfe and a Key in giving possession and the words and actions of matrimonial solemnization or Contract 4. It is new Logick to my understanding that the minor being sealed the Conclusion eo nomine is sealed The minor of many an Argument may be true and the conclusion false And therefore when the case so falls out that both minor and conclusion are true or sealed it is not eo nomine because the minor is true that the Conclusion is so or is sealed eo nomine because the minor is so but because both major and minor are so and not then neither but upon supposition that the Syllogism be sound 5. But to prove this you say the proof of any Proposition in a Syllogism is in order to the proof of the Conclusion and so the sealing of any Proposition is in order to the sealing of the Conclusion Reply The first is true 1. But what is this to the matter Is it all one to prove it and to be in order to prove it to seal it and to be in order to the sealing of it Is the Conclusion proved on the proof of one Proposition No therefore according to your own arguing neither is it sealed by the sealing of one Proposition 2. That the sealing of one Proposition is in order to the sealing of the Conclusion I deny 1. It may be a single Proposition that is sealed not standing as part of a Syllogism as this I Give Christ and Life in him to you all that will Accept him 2. If it be supposed part of a Syllogism it is enough sometime that the Conclusion be cleared or confirmed or we enabled igfallibly to gather it by the sealing of one Proposition but it is not necessary that it be the very sealing of the Conclusion to which the sealing of that Ptoposition doth tend When a Landlord hath sealed a Lease to his Tenant he hath sealed this Proposition If A. B. well and truly pay such Rents he shall quietly enjoy such Lands suppose the minor to be But A. B. doth or will well and truly pay such Rents suppose this minor Proposition either false or uncertain will you say then that the sealing of the major was in order to the sealing of the Conclusion No the Conclusion is Absolute therefore A. B. shall enjoy such Lands but the Proposition sealed is Conditional It is enough that it secure his Right if he pay his Rent and that it enable him infallibly so to conclude while he performs the conditions though it tend not at all to seal the Conclusion We seldom use seals to Syllogisms and not to Conclusions as such or eo noimne because a major or minor Proposition is proved though the thing sealed may be to other uses made part of a Syllogism Yet I grant that where the Syllogism is such as that one of the Propositions doth morally contain the Conclusion in sense though not in terms there the conclusion is sealed when that one Proposition is sealed because it is the sense and not meer terms that are sealed and undoubted naturals are presupposed in moralitie and therefore the sealing of one is the sealing of both For example if you argue either from a Synonimal term or from the thing as Defined to the thing as named or from the Genus to the Species or from the Species to the Individual thus succinum corroborat cerebrum At Ambarum vel electrum est succinum therefore Ambarum vel electrum corroborat cerebrum or thus Privatio visus est naturae malum Caecitas est Privatio visus therefore Caecitas est naturae malum Or thus God made every creature Man is a creature
evil without the co-working or instrumentality of faith But these are beside the point 5. When you have laid down one Proposition Man cannot justifie himself by beleeving without God how fairly do you lay down this as the disjunct Proposition and God will not justifie an unbeleeving man Concedo totum Is that your Conclusion Would you have no more Who would have thought but you would rather have said Nor will God justifie man unless his faith be the instrument of it And do you not seem to imply that man with God doth justifie himself when you say Man cannot justifie himself by beleeving without God No nor with him neither For none can forgive sins but God only even to another but who can forgive himself Indeed I have thought what a sad case the Pope is in that is the only man on earth that hath no visible pardoner of his sin he can forgive others but who shall forgive him But I forgot that every beleever forgiveth himself for I did not beleeve it 6. How nakedly is it again affirmed without the least proof that our faith is Gods instrument in justifying Doth God effect our Justification by the instrumentall efficient causation of our faith Let him beleeve it that is so happy as to see it proved and not barely affirmed §. 13. Mr Bl. SO that which is here spoken by way of exception against faith as an instrument holds of efficients and instruments sole and absolute in their work and causality But where there is a concurrence of Agents and one makes use of the act of another to produce the effect that in such causality is wrought it will not hold §. 13. R. B. HE that will or can make him a Religion of words and syllables that either signifie nothing or are never like to be understood by the learner let him make this an Article of his faith 1. What you mean by absolute I cannot certainly ariolate unless that which is never a principall 2. Nor know I whether by sole you mean Materialiter Formaliter vel Respectivè quoad causam principalem 1. Two materials may concurre to make one formal instrument Here the instrument is but one though the matter of it may be of divers parts Sure this is not your sense that faith and something else materially concurre to make one instrument 2. An instrument may be called sole formally when it it is the only instrument and there is no other concurreth to the effect If you mean that my exceptions hold against none but such sole instruments then it is more nakedly then truly asserted nor do they hold ever the more or less whether the instrument be sole or not else they would hold against few instruments in the world For it is not usual to have an effect produced by a sole instrument especially of subordinate instruments though it may be usual as to coordinate 3. An instrument may be called sole Respectivè as to the principal cause viz. It is not the instrument of many principals but of one only Is this your meaning that my exceptions would hold if faith were only mans instrument or only Gods but not when it is both If so 1. This is affirmed without the least shew of proof or reason why my exceptions hold not as much against that instrument of a double principal as of a single surely the nature of an instrument is not varied by that 2. If God and man be both principals as they must be if faith be the instrument of both then either coordinate or subordinate but neither of these as I have argued before Man neither forgives himself under God or with God if you speak of one and the same forgiveness Though I know there is another kinde of forgiveness whereby a man may forgive himself whereof Seneca speaks de Ira when he saith Why should I fear any of my Errors when I can say See thou do so no more I now forgive thee lib. 3. cap. 36. O for one proof among all these affirmations that here is such a concurrence of Agents that God makes use of the act of man to produce the effect of Remission and that as an instrument and not only as a meer condition fine qua non §. 14. Mr Bl. THe Promise or Grant of the New Covenant in the Gospel is instead of faith made the instrument in the work of Justification This is indeed Gods and not mans It is the Covenant of God the promise of God the Gospel of God but of it self unable to raise man up to Justification §. 14. R. B. YOu have been farre from satisfying me in asserting the instrumentality of faith in Justification You here come more short of satisfying me against the sufficiency of the Gospel-grant as Gods instrument You say This indeed is Gods not mans I say There is none but Gods for non datur instrumentum quod non est causae principalis instrumentum You say It is of it self unable to raise man up to Justification I answer 1. It is not of it self able to do all other works antecedent to Justification as to humble to give faith to Regenerate c. But that 's nothing to our business 2. But as to the act of Justification or conveying right to Christ pardon and righteousness I say It is able of it self as the signum voluntatis divinae to do it And you will never be able to make good your accusation of its disability 3. If you should mean that of it self i. e. without the concomitancy of faith as a condition it is not able I answer that 's not fitly called disability Or if you will so call it the reason of that disability is not because there is a necessity of faiths instrumentall coâ—fficiency but of its presence as the performed condition It being the will of the donor that his grant should not efficere actualiter till the condition were performed §. 15. Mr Bl. IT is often tendered and Justification not alwaies wrought and so disabled from the office of an instrument by Keckerman in his Comment on his first Canon concerning an instrument As soon as the instrument serves not the principall agent so soon it loseth the nature of an instrument He instanceth in an horse which obeyeth not the reins of his rider but grows refractory then he ceaseth to be an instrument for travell A sword is not an instrument of slaughter where it slayes not nor an ax an instrument to hâ—w when it cuts not Neither is the Gospel an instrument of Justification where it justifies not §. 15. R. B. J Am too shallow to reach the reason of these words I know you had not leasure to write them in vain and meerly to fill paper And I will not be so uncharitable as to think you willing to intimate to the world that I had wrote or thought that the Gospel was the instrument of justifying a man that was never justified Do you think I know not a Cause and
Effect are so related that formaliter it is not an efficient before it doth effect Though it may still be the same Thing and have the same Aptitude to produce the Effect even when it is not applied and therefore by many Logicians is laxly termed a Cause still 3. Nor can I perceive you make this a medium of any argument except you would arguâ— thus The grant of the Covenant is not an Instrument of justifying unbelievers that never were justified Therefore it is not a full or proper instrument of justifying believers that are justified Or else therefore faith is an instrument as well as the Gospel To your Reader that is no wiser then I these words therefore are at the best but lost labour For I suppose this Argumentation you will not own §. 16. Mr Bl. WHen the Minister is a Minister of condemnation the savour of death to death there the Gospel becomes an instrument of condemnation and death §. 16. R. B. 1. SO it is if there be no Minister where it is known any way 2. I speak of Gods grant or promise in the Gospel you speak of his commination 3. If the threat be the proper instrument of condemnation à pari the promise or gift is the proper instrument of Justification Saw you not this when you wrote it §. 17. Mr Bl. THe efficacy that is in the Gospel for Justification it receives by their faith to whom it is tendred §. 17. R. B. DArkly but dangerouslly spoken Darkly for its possible you may mean that it receives it by faith as by a condition sine quâ homo non est subjectum proximè capax and so I grant the sense dangerously For the words will seem to any impartial Reader to import more specially finding what you say for faiths instrumentality before viz. That the Gospel receives its efficacy from faith or by faith as the instrument which conveyeth that efficacy to the Gospel which if you mean I would for the Truth 's sake and your own that these words had never been seen For if faith give the Gospel its efficacy 1. It cannot be as a concause-instrumentall coordinate but as a superiour more principal cause to the subordinate 2. If it were the former that is meant yet were it intollerable 1. Nothing but a superiour cause doth convey efficaciam causandi to another And this must be either 1. Influendo in potentiam inferioris 2. Vel in actum To say that mans faith doth either of these to the Gospel-grant is such a doctrine as I will not dare to argue against left you take me thereby to accuse you of being guilty of it 2. Faith cannot as a concause convey any efficacy into the Gospel For a co-ordinate concause doth influere immediatè in ipsum effectum at non in concausae potentiam vel actum 3. If you had only said that faith doth concurre in efficiency with the Gospel to Justification you had said more then you bring any proof for But let 's see what you bring in stead of proof §. 18. Mr Bl. HEb 4.2 Vnto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them but the Word preached did not profit them not being mixed with faith in them that heard it 1 Thes 2.12 13. You received not the Word of God as the word of men but as it is in truth the Word of God which effectually worketh in you that believe §. 18. R. B. BUt where 's your conclusion or any shew of advantage to your Cause 1. In the first Text the Apostle speaks of the words profiting in the real change of the soul and our question is of the Relative The Scripture meaneth The word had not that further work on the heart as it hath in them that mix it with faith will you interpret it thus The Word did not justifie them 2. It s true that the Word did not justifie them but that 's consequential only of the former unprofitableness Once prove that man is but as much efficient in justifying himself as he is in the obedience and change of his minde or actions and then you do something 3. Is here ever a word for the Gospels receiving its efficacy to Justification by faith no nor of its so receiving that real profit of sanctification which is here meant neither It s weak arguing to say The Word profited not because it was not mixt with faith therefore faith conveys to it its efficacy of sanctifying yea of justifying You cannot but know the sequel would be denied In progressive sanctification and obedience and exercise of graces the word and faith are concauses and one will not effect without the other But it followeth not that therefore faith gives efficacy to the Word in this much less to Justification where faith is no efficient For concauses have not influence on each other but both on the effect The want of faith may hinder the Word from that further work one the soul which presupposeth faith for faith is not wrought with faith's cooperation and that 's all that the Text saith But may not the absence of faith hinder unless when present it doth effect I am sure in Justification where it is but a condition it may The nature of a condition when the gift is free and full is not to effect the thing but to suspend the efficacy of the instrument till it be performed As if I may use so gross a similitude the clicket of a Cross-bow doth hinder the â—ow from shooting till you stir it but doth not adde any force to it when you do stir it The second Text I know not how you mean to make use of unless you argue thus The Word worketh effectually only in Beleevers therefore faith conveyeth efficacy to the Word I think I need not tell you that I deny the sequel not to speak of the antecedent nor yet to tell you that this speaks not of working the relative change of Justification §. 19. Mr Bl. SO that the Gospel in it self considered is wanting in that honour assigned to an instrument to have influx to the producing of the effect of the principall cause by a proper causality If none dare say that faith hath such an influx they may much less say that the Word hath such an influx §. 19. R. B. THe Gospel in it self considered without the coordinate or subordinate or superiour causality of faith hath this honour so fully clearly beyond all doubt that no man that is a preacher of this Gospel should question it Much less should prefer the causality of faith in saying that we may much less give this honour to the Word or say this of the Word then of our own faith Yet the Gospel without the concomitancy of faith doth not actually justifie else faith were no condition or causa sine qua non But that is no dishonour to the Gospel nor defect of power which faith must supply But the force of the instrument being meerly from the Donors will he willeth
nothing to the nature of an instrument active or passive whether it be produced by the principal agent or not so it do but subserve that agent 2. If this proposition be true there is never an active instrument in rerum natura For Angels and men calor frigus and all creatures are produced by God as the principal cause to the producing of some effects except there be any ultimi effectus found out which are not causes of other effects and they all receive activity and power from God Those that are most for passive instruments say calor is an active instrument But if I use fire to warm my beer or burn any thing this receives its activity and power from another and therefore must be no active instrument with you If there be no active instrument when I thought there had been no passive instrument I was fâ—r wide 3. But what mean these strange words of Activity and power received if the instrument be not active Is not the Potentia here meant Potentia efficiendi and is not all effection by action And is not the activity here mentioned an activity in causing What and yet no active instrument 1 Be not offended with me Dear brother if I confess that you and I differ in more points than one and in our Philosophy as well as Theology §. 23. Mr Bl. BVt the Word is produced and held forth of God for the work of Justification and hath its power of working elsewhere §. 23. R. B. YEt more strange 1. Is it not enough that you take the Word to be a passive instrument of Confirmation and Conversion and all the work that it doth on the souls of your hearers really 〈◊〉 you must feign the Word to be the passive instrument of Justification too Is there any thing in the whole world that can mâ—râ— unfiâ—ly be called a passive instrument then the Covenant of Justification Why it is Gods only instrument of active Constitution of the dueness of the benefiâ— Though it be but actione morali ut â—ignum â—â—lâ—ntatis donatoris The Debitum results from the Grant Deed of Gift Testament or Instrument of Donation or Conveyance as from its fundamentum proximum And is the fundamentum proximum Relatioâ—is a passive Instrument 2. The Word hath its power of working elsewhere that is from God but not from mans faith Farre be such a thought from my soul 3. I suspect by your words when you say the Word is produced and held sorth of God and by your discourse all along that you all this while understand not what I mean by the Covenants justifying yet I had hoped you had understood the thing it self You seem to think that the Covenant justifies by some real operation on the â—oul as the Papists say and our Divines say It sanctifies or as it justifies in forâ— conscientiae by giving assurance and comfort But Sir I opened my thoughts of this fully in Aphor. pag. 173 174 175 176 177 178 179. I scarce bestowed so many words of any one particular point I speak not of the effect of Gods Word as preached to mens hearts but as it is Lex promulgata Faedus Testamentum and so doth convey Right or Constitute the dueness of the benefit This is the Record that God hath given us eternall Life and this Life is in his Son c. 1 Joh. 5.11 12. This Gospel-donation doth constitute the duness of the thing given to us and thus the Covenant justifies as a written pardon under the Kings hand or an act of grace or oblivion doth pardon Do you not oft read in Divines of Justificatio Juris vel Legis as distinct from Justificatio Judicis vel per sententiam I referre you to what I said in the cited place §. 24. Mr Bl. FOrgiveness of sins is preached in the Gospel Act. 13.32 But it is those that beleeve that are justified Faith through the Spirit gives efficacy and power of working to it §. 24. R. B. I Should tremble to say so What Romanist by the doctrine of merit gives more to man in the work of Justification If our faith give efficacy and power to the Gospel to justifie us then we justifie our selves when the Gospel justifies us then the Gospel is our instrument of Justification And can this be unless it be also said that we made the Gospel Then God and we are concauses in the Gospels act of Donation And is it the same power and efficacy for justifying which the Gospel receives from God and which it receives from faith or are they divers If divers shew us what they are and which part of its power and efficacy the Gospel receives from faith and which from God If they are the same then God must convey justifying efficacy and power into faith first and by faith into the Gospel which who imagineth or why should I be so vain as to stand to confute it O that you had condescended so far to your Readers weakness as to have deigned to shew him Quomodo patitur Evangelium recipiendo Quid recipit ut siat potens efficax quomodo haec potentia efficacia fuit in fide utrum eminenter an formaliter aut utrum fides id communicavit quod nunquam habuit quomodo agit fides in hoc influxu causativo in Evangelium with many more of the like which you make necessary to be enquired after And why gave you no proof from Scripture or reason for a point that is so new that I think never man printed before you for so far as I can learn at present That saith gives efficacy and power of sanctifying or exciting Grace perhaps some before you have delivered but that it gives efficacy and power of justifying I think not any 2. And sure you do not take the foregoing words for proof If you do I desire your Reader may not do so What though only Believers are justified by the Covenant Doth it follow that faith gives efficacy and power to the Covenant to justifie Then either there are no conditions or causes sine quibus non or else they all are efficientâ— and give efficacy and power to other efficients What if your father bequeath by his Testament 110 a piece to each of his sons to one on condition he will ask it of his elder brother and thank him for it to another if he be married by such a time to a third if he will promise not to wast it in prodigality Do any of these conditions give efficacy and power to the Testament No Yet the Testament doth not efficaciter agere till they are performed Why is that Because all such instruments work morally only by expressing ut signa the Will of the Agent and therefore they work both when and how he will and it is his Will that they shall not work till such a time and but on such terms and so he frames the conditions himself as obices to suspend his Testament or
the boldness to speak out its consequents and say Gods Word is the Believers wordâ— the Beleever enableth Gods Law of grace to forgive him The Law of grace is defective in power till the Beleever perfect it Credere non est actuâ— subditi vel Legatarâ—â— sed Rectoris Judiâ—is Testatoris Ergo Homo habet authoritatem seipsum Justificandi sibi ipsi condoâ—andi credendo hanc excâ—â—et authoritatem 8. Your strange proof is oft answered What though the Word without faith is no instrument Doth it follow that therefore either faith makes it an inâ—trument or is an instrument it self The King grants an Act of Oblivion or Pardon to a thousand Traytors on condition that by such a day they come and seek and thankfully accept it Doth their seeking or thankfull Acceptance give power and efficacy as an instrument to the Kings Pardon Or are the Pardon and Acceptance one compleat instrument Or is it more fit to call the Traytors Acceptance the instrument of his Pardon then the Kings Act Credat qui credere potis est Twisse saith An audebit Arminianus aliquis affirmare Remissionem pecâ—â—torum esse effectionem fidei tametsi nisi credentibus contingat ista Remissio Dices fidem saltem praerequisitum quiddam esse ad Remissionem peccatorum consequendum Esto atque hac ratione dicatur effectio fidei sed â—u genere tantum causae dispusitivae Twiss Vinâ— Grat. l. 1. part 2. § 25. p. mihi 273. So he oft saith both of Faith and Works that they justifie only ut causae dispositivae and therefore in one kinde of causality and not as instruments properly so called §. 26. Mr Bl. THerefore to winde up this whole Dispute in which I have studied to be brief though I fear some will think I have been too tedious seeing that those that make faith the instrument in Justification make the Gospel an instrument likewise and dare not go about to strip it of its honour I hope that they that make the Gospel an instrument will acknowledge faith to be an instrument in like manner being in their efficacy as instruments so inseparably joyned and so all the Controversie will be fairly ended and concluded Amen §. 27. R. B. 1. IF this be a Dispute I am none of those that think it too long I scarce finde a line in many Pages It is in my eyes so short that it seems as nothing 2. Your motion for decision will take when man is proved to be God then mans act of Beleeving may fairly share of the same honour with Gods act of Legal forgiving And yet then I shall demurre on the preferring it But till then I love Peace and Unity but not on such a compromising as to share the honour of the Redeemer with the redeemed of the Creator with the creature of the Sovereign pardoning with the Traytor pardoned 3. I like Amen better then Ergo and Herberts transformation I much applauâ—â— but not the substitution of Amen for a necessary Ergo. This â—imium 〈◊〉 disputandi genus that can prove all with a word an ipse dico and wipe off all that is opposed with a wet finger I never liked I must next take in what you adde afterwards §. 27. Mr Bl. Pag. 91. Obj. JT is said by another If faith be a condition of the Covenant of Grace then it can be no instrument of our Justification If it be a condition in this Covenant it justifies as a condition and then it cannot justifie as an instrument and so I pull down what I build and run upon contradictions Answ I answer I should rather judge on the contrary that because it is a condition of the Covenant in the way as it is before expresâ— that it is therefore an instrument in our Justification God â—enders the gift of righteousness to be received by faith He Covenants for this faith for acceptation of it By beleeving theâ— we keep Covenant and receive Christ for Justification we as well do what God requires as receive what he tenders we do our duty and take Gods gift and thereby keep Covenant and receive life and so faith is both a condition and an instrument §. 27. R. B. BUt do you take officium and conditio to be all one I easily yield that we may do our duty in beleeving though it were an instrument But a condition is more then a duty yea then a duty to be performed for the obtaining of a benefit Cujacius saith Conditio est Lex addita negotio qua doâ—ec praestetur eventum suspendit Vel est modus vel causa quae suspendit id quod agitur donec ex post-facto confirmetur Or as Mynfinger Cum quid in casum incertum i. e. contingens qui potest tendere ad esse vel non esse conferiur And they are divided into Potestativas Casuales Mixtas Ours is of the former sort and I define it viz. the condition of the Covenant to be Actio voluntaria de fuâ—â—ro a Deo Legislatore Christo Testatore in neva Legâ— Federe Testamento requisita ut ex ejus praestaâ—ione constituatur jus actuale ad beneficium vel ut obligationem eventum suspendat donâ—â— praestetur For ex stipulatione conditionali neque obligatio â—eque actio ulla est anâ—equam conditio eveniat Quia quod est in conditione non est in obligatione Vt Myâ—sing in Iustâ—â— Schol. pag 5 â—â— â— You must consider that it is not de conditione contractus venditionis emptionis vel 〈◊〉 vel â—â—â—ationis or any the like that is propter preâ—ium but it is the condition 〈…〉 but somewhat partaking naturae Feudi as to sâ—me of the Benefits This being premised it is evident that faith cannot justifie both as a condition and as an instrument of Justification For 1. Either of them importeth the proximam causalem rationem of faith as to the effect But it is utterly inconsistent with its nature to have two such different nearest causal interests To be an instrument of justifying is to efâ—ect it per modum instrumenti To be the condition is to be the causa sine quâ non which doth not effect but suspend the effect till performed It hath the name of a cause and sometime is ex materia a moral impulsive and sometime not but it hath the truâ— nature of such a medium ad finem as is no cause As faith cannot be both efficiens effecti effectum ejusdem â—ficientis nor be both the efficient and constitutive cause material or formal no more can it produce one and the same effect of Justification per modum instrumenti efficientis and per modum conditionis sine quâ non 2. Else you must feign the pardoning act to run thus I will pardon thee on condition thou wilt pardon thy self by beleeving as the instrument and not only on condition thou accept Christ 3. It belongeth to the pardoning instrument to conferre the right to the thing that
against me yet I am uncertain because he reciteth no words of mine I have no more to do in this therefore but to clear my own meaning 1. The word Covenant is sometime taken for Gods Law made to his creature containing Precepts Promises and Threatnings Sometime for mans promise to God Violation is taken either rigidly for one that in judgement is esteemed a non performer of the conditions Or laxly foâ— one that in judgement is found a true performer of the conditions but did neglect or refuse the performance for a time Taking the word Covenant in the later sense I have affirmed that man breaks many a Covenant with God yea even the Baptismal vow it self is so broken till men do truly repent and believe But taking the word append Covenant in the former sense and Violation in the stricter sense I say that so none violate the Covenant but finall unbelievers and impenitent that is no other are the proper subjects of its peremptory curse or threatning I think not my self called to give any further answer to that Chapter of Mr. Blakes R. B. Mr. Blake's 32. Chap. I take to be wholly against me and though I know nothing in it that I have not sufficiently answered either in the place of my Book of Baptism whence he fetcheth my words in the Appendix in the Animadversions on Doctor Ward or before to Mr. Tombes yet because I take it to contain doctrine of a very dangerous nature I will more fully Answer it §. 39. Mr Bl. Ch. 32. A Dogmatical faith entitles to Baptism 3. IT further follows by way of Consectary that a Dogmatical faith ordinarily called by the name of faith Historical such that assents to Gospel truths though not affecting the heart to a full choice of Christ and therefore was short of faith which was justifying and saving gives title to Baptism The Covenant is the ground on which Baptism is bottomed otherwise Church-membership would evince no title either in infants or in men of years to Baptism But the Covenant as we have proved is entered with men of faith not saving and therefore to them Baptism is to be administred How the consequent can be denied by those that grant the antecedent Baptism denied in foro Dei to men short of saving faith when they are in Covenant I cannot imagine Yet some that confess their interest in the Covenant deny their title to Baptism and affirm If men be once taught that it is a faith that is short of justifying and saving faith which admitteth men to Baptism it will make foul work in the Church §. 39 R. B. BEfore I give a direct Reply to these words I think it necessary that I I tell you How farre I take Unregenerate men to be in Covenant with God and how farre not and that I also discover as farre as I can Mr. Blake's minde in this Point that it may be known wherein the difference lieth The Covenant is sometime taken for Gods part alone sometime for our part alone sometime for both conjunct even for a mutual Covenanting As it is taken for Gods act it signifieth 1. Either some absolute promise of God made 1. Either to Christ concerning men or on their behalf and so the elect may be said to be in Covenant before they are born because Christ hath a promise that they shall be saved and the non-elect are in Covenant before they are born because Christ hath a promise of some good to them 2. Or to men themselves And that is either 1. Common or 2. Peculiar to some 1. Common as the promise made to fallen mankinde that a Saviour should be sent to Redeem them The promise made to the people of Israel that the Messiah should be of them according to the â—â—esh and personally live among them and preach the Gospel to them The promise made to Noah and the world that the earth should no more be drowned with water The promise of preaching the Gospel to all Nations which is common though not absolutely universal the promise of a Resurrection to all the world and that they shall be judged by Christ the Redeemer and at least those that heard the Gospel on the terms of the new Law and not on the meer rigorous terms of the Law of entire nature the promise of a fuller and clearer promulgation and explication of the Law of grace when Christ should come in the flesh the promise of a fuller measure of the Spirit to be poured out for Miracles to confirm the Christian Doctrine to the beholders hearers and actors that there shall be a Ministry Commissioned to Disciple and Baptize all Nations maintained to the end of the world which gives Ministers right and authority to Baptize them and if there be any other the like promise of the means necessarily anteceding faith Thus farre many thousands that are unregenerate and non-elect may be said to be in Covenant that is under these promises 2. Some of these absolute promises are peculiar to some as to one Sex though common as to that Sex as the mans superiority to one Age to one Degree in order of nativity as to the elder brother to have some superiority over the younger Gen. 4.7 to one Nation as to the Israelites were made many peculiar promises and those before mentioned which I called common as to all Israel were peculiar to them some of them in exclusion of other Nations And some to particular persons good or bad as for success in battell or other enterprises for aversion of some threatned judgement for the abating of some inflicted punishment for some temporal or common blessing of which sort we finde many particular promises which God by some Prophet made with particular men In all these respects I say wicked men have been under a promise yea men not elect to salvation and thus far they may be said to be in Covenant with God But this is but a lax and improper speech to say such are in Covenant to be used now among Christians that have used to give the name Covenant by an excellency to another thing Also now wicked men are not under peculiar personal promises of temporal things as then they were because now there are no extraordinary Prophets or other the like Messengers oâ— Revelations from God to make such particular promises to men Yet I will not say God hath restrained himself from this or cannot or will not do it at all or that no man hath such Revelations but only 1. That it is not usual 2. Nor is God engaged to do it So for the absolute promise of the first special grace first faith and repentance to be given to all the Elect supposing that there is such a promise this is made to none but the ungodly and unregenerate though elect unless you will say it is made to Christ for them or rather is a prediction of good eventually to be conferred on them But though in all these respects wicked men are
under a promise yet it is none of all these that gives them right to Baptism There is no question of any but the last and for that I have proved in my Appendix against Mr. Bedford that it is not that Covenant that Baptism sealeth Whither I refer you to avoid Repeâ—iâ—ion much more easie is it to prove that it is not that bare promise that gives right to Baptism For many are Pagans and Infidels to whom that promise belongs So much for the Absolute promise 2. As for Conditional promises to man they are either 1. Peculiar as extraordinary promises of temporal blessings conditionally made to some particular persons heretofore Of these I say as of the former Wicked men may be under such promises but these give not right to Baptism 2. Common such as are not made to this or that man more then others but to all at least in the tenour of the grant though it be not promulgate to all Of this sort 1. Some suppose certain promises to go before the great Law of grace 2. But I yet know not of any but the Law of grace it self anon to be described 1. Those that do suppose some such antecedaneous promise are of two sorts 1. The Arminians and Jesuites 2. Such as Mr. Blake about Church-Ordinances 1. The Jesuites and Arminians speak of two such common promises 1. One is of the giving of supernatural means of Revelation to men on condition of the right use of natural Revelation As if God had promised to all Heathen and Infidels that never heard of Christ that they shall have the Gospel sent them if they will use the light of nature well or will seek out for the Gospel 2. The other promise which they imagine is that God will give supernatural or special grace viz. the first grace of faith and repentance to men on condition they will use well their common grace and means I know of no such promise as either of these in Scripture of which see Davenant in his Dissertation of Universal Redemption When any Arminian will shew such a promise in Scripture we shall yield But yet I will tell you how far I yield 1. I yield that God doth actually give temporal blessings to wicked men But this is no Covenant or promise Yet it gives them a right to enjoy them de praesenti while they do enjoy them so that it is not sound Doctrine of them that say Wicked men have no right to the creature in whatsoever they possess and that they are but usurpers For if you see one naked in the street and put him on a garment he hath right to wear that and enjoy it while you permit him But yet because you promise him nothing for the future he is not certain a moment of the continuance of that right or possession for you may take it off him again when you will So wicked men have right and possession of Gods mercies by actual collation de praesenti but not by promise de futuro or by such proper donation as gives them the full propriety for so God useth not to part with the propriety of his creatures to any 2. I yield that God doth give to Heathens who have but natural light some helps which have a tendency to their further advancement and doth appoint them certain means to be used for the obtaining of a higher light and that he giveth them sufficient encouragement to go on in the chearfull use of those means in possibilities and probabilities of success so that they are unexcusable that use them not These Mr. Cotton cals half promises as who knows but the Lord may do thus and thus Pray therefore if perhaps the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee c. But promises properly they are not God hath thought meet to keep himself disengaged from this sort of men 3. The very same I yield of men in the visible Church using common grace as well as they can that is that God hath appointed certain means which such men are to use for the getting of special grace that those that perish do justly perish for not using those means so well as they could and so for not beleeving that he hath given them sufficient incouragement to use such means by examples experiences the nature of the means and some half promises of success but no promise properly so called 4. I yield that he actually gives saving grace to wicked men or else none could have it But this they can plead no right to before they have it 2. The second sort of promises before the great Covenant of grace is feigned by Mr. Blake and if there be any other that go that way as some do and that with some difference among themselves and that is A promise of Church-priviledges upon condition of a faith not justifying or saving Here some annex special grace to these Church-priviledges and so fall into the Arminian strain So Dr. Ward against Mr. Gataker doth make a common not-justifying faith the condition of Baptism and then that Baptism a means non ponenti obicem of the certain Justification of all the Baptized and so at least the infants of all common professors baptized should be certainly justified But I finde not Mr. Blake any where owning this connexion of special grace and efficacy of Baptism on such therefore I suppose it is but some common mercies that he supposeth this promise to make over to the Baptized But I will enquire further into his opinion anon 2. The common or general promise-conditional which I acknowledge is the new Law of grace or of faith wherein God promiseth to be our God so we will take him for our God and will be his people and to give us Christ and Life if we will accept him as he is offered in the Gospel or that he that repenteth and beleeveth shall be justified and saved and he that doth not shall be damned Whereto is also annexed the promise of temporal mercies so far as they are good for us as appurtenances to the main blessings of the Covenant Now I will tell you how far wicked men are under this great promise or Covenant 1. As it is a conditional promise on Gods part or a Law of grace enacted conditionally giving Christ and Life to all men so All men are under it or the subjects of it that is All the whole world as to the tenour of the Law of grace following the meer enacting and all that hear the Gospel as to the promulgation 2. So as it hath a precept conjunct requiring them to believe and repent for remission and salvation so all are under it that hear it 3. So are they as to the annexed threatning upon their unbelief and impenitency 4. So as the Preachers of the Gospel do by Commission from Christ apply all this to them and intreat them by name to repent and believe and offer them Christ and the other benefits of the Covenant if they will repent and
of a Christian which they assumed Pag. 192. he saith All professed Christians so called are in an outward and single Covenant 1. What those that are called professed Christians and are not No sure that 's not the meaning else mens miscalling might put them in Covenant It is then those that are so and are called so But will it not serve if they are so unless called so 2. He means either those that profess the name of Christianity or the Thing Of the insufficiency of the first I spoke before For the second if they profess the whole Essence of Christianity undissembledly I think they are truly Regenerate If they profess but part as to the Matter both of Assent and Consent of which I spoke before in the Conclusions and which we have in this County lately set down in our Profession of Faith then it is not Christianity which they profess for part of the essence is not the Thing where an essential part is wanting the form is absent If it be the whole matter of Christianity that is professed but Dissembledly then as he is equivocally or analogically a Believer or Christian so I yield he is a member of the Visible Church which so far as it is only Visible is equivocally called The Church of which I have fullier spoken in Answer to Mr Tombes Praecursor I know Mr Bl. thinks that there may be an undissembled Profession which yet may not be of a saving Faith But then I yet conceive it is not an entire Profession of the whole essential object of Christian faith viz. of Assent and Consent It will be a hard saying to many honest Christians to say that a man not justified may believe every fundamental Article and withall truly profess Repentance of all his sins and to Take God for his Soveraign to Rule him and his chief Good to be enjoyed to his happiness and to take Christ for his Lord and only Saviour and his Word for his Law and Rule and the holy Ghost for his Guide and Sanctifier and the rest which is essential to Christianity Pag. 192. He saith of all that externally make Profession These engage themselves upon Gods terms But if they do so sincerely they are sincere Christians If not sincerely they are but equivocally Christians Some think that in the 11th Chapter of the 3d part of my Book of Rest I gave too much to an unregenerate estate and yet I think there is nothing contrary to this that I now say He that professeth not to preferre God and the Redeemer before all other things professeth not Christianity and he that professeth this and lieth not is a Regenerate justified Christian Pag. 200. he describeth his unregenerate Christians to be such as Accept the terms of the Covenant And this none doth indeed but the sanctified If Mr. Bl. will say that the unregenerate may do it he will make them true believers For what is true faith but an Accepting of Christ and his Benefits on the Covenant terms Though I confess others may falsly say they Accept him Pag. 220. he saith Laws tendred by a Prince and received by a People make up the Relation of King and people yet indeed that 's not true for it is the Receiving the man to be our King which is antecedent to the receiving his Laws that makes the Relation A marriage Covenant tendred by a man and accepted by a Virgin makes up the Relation of Husband and Wife Covenant draughts between man and man for service make up the Relation of Master and Servant Now the Gospel Covenant is all of these between God and a People Rep. The Accepting Christ in this Covenant is true Justifying Faith If an unregenerate man have this indeed then he is justified and Faith and Justification are common things which I will not believe If Mr. Bl. mean that the external profession of this Acceptance alone doth make up the Relation I say as before It may oblige the Professour but makes not up the Relation of Real Christians because God conseâ—teth not nor is actually in Covenant and obliged The differences Mr. Bl. must take notice of between his humane Covenants and ours with God or else he will marre all Men know not one anothers hearts and therefore make not Laws for hearts nor impose Conditions on hearts and therefore if both parties do profess Consent though dissemblingly they are both obliged and the Covenant is mutual But God offers to Consent only on Condition that our hearts Consent to his terms and therefore if we profess Consent and do not Consent God Consenteth not nor is as it were obliged Next Mr. Bl. proceeds there to tell us that the Accepting the Word preached is the note of the Church But that is a more lax ambiguous term then the former Some call it an accepting the Word when they are content to hear it Some when they speculatively believe the truth of it These are no true notes of true Christians or Churches in the first sense of the word Church Others Accept but part of that word which is the necessary object of Faith of whom the like may he said It is the Accepting Christ and Life in him offered by this word which is Christianity it self or true Faith and the profession of this is that which makes a man a Member of the Visible Church He may accept it for his Infants also So much for the indagation of Mr. Bl's meaning about the description of his visible Christians Next what he means by Covenant I confess I despair of knowing Sometime he speaks as if he meant it but of their own act of Covenant whereby they oblige themselves But ordinarily it is evident that he speaks of a mutual Covenant â—nd makes God to be also in Covenant with them But what Covenant of God is tâ—is Pag. 192. He saith they are in an outward and single Covenant But what he means by a single Covenant I know not He there also chooseth to express himself in Paraeus words who distinguisheth inter beneficia foederis which he denieth them and Jus foederis which he alloweth them But I confess I know not what Jus foederis is except one of these two things 1. A Right to enter Covenant with Christ and so have Infidels 2. Or a Right to the Benefits promised in the Covenant and this he denieth them If he meaneth as Parâ—eus seems a Right to be esteemed as Covenanters and used as Covenanters by the Church though indeed God is not in Covenant with them this we easily grant But Mr. Bl's common phrase is that they are in the outward Covenant and what that is I cannot tell I know what it is to covenant ore tenus only outwardly or by a dissembled profession or else a profession maimed or not understood and I have said that hereby they may further oblige themselves so far as the creature can be said to oblige it self who is not sui Juris but wholly Gods and is under his
absolute obligation already But it is Gods Covenant act that we are enquiring after In what sense is that called Outward 1. It cannot be as if God did as the dissembling creature ore tenus with the mouth only covenant with them and not with the heart as they deal with him 2. I know therefore no possible sense but this that it is called Outward from the Blessings promised which are outward Here therefore 1. I should have thought it but reasonable for Mr. Bl. to have told us what those outward Blessings are that this Covenant promiseth 2. That he would have proved out of Scripture that God hath such a Covenant distinct from the Covenant of Grace which promiseth Justification and Salvation and having other Conditions on our part For both these I cannot finde what outward blessings he means but Church Ordinances and Priviledges These consist in the Word Sacraments Prayer Discipline For the Word God oft bestoweth it on Infidels and in England there are men that deride the truth of Scripture and esteem it a fiction and yet for credit of men come ordinarily to the Congregation These have the Word given them and so have other unregenerate men but not by Covenant that I know of Even the godly have no Covenant assuring them that for the future they shall enjoy the Word further then it is in their hearts except that promise with a reserve If God see it Good c. Where hath God said If thou wilt with thy mouth profess to believe I will give thee my Word preached 2. For Baptism It is part of our profession it self And though God hath commissioned us to Baptize such professours and their seed yet that is not a Covenant with them Nor do I know where God saith I will give thee Baptism if thou wilt but say thou believest or if thou wilt profess seriously a half faith More shall be said against this anon 3. For the Lords Supper the same may be said God hath no where made a Covenant that they shall have the Lords Supper that will profess faith To feign God to make a Covenant with man whose condition shall be orall profession and whose Blessing promised is only the nudum signum a little water to wash men and a little bread and wine without that Christ and Remission of sin Mortification and Spiritual Life which these Sacraments are in their Institution appointed to signifie seal and exhibit this is I think a groundless and presumptuous course 4. The same may be said of Discipline which alas few Churches do enjoy I desire therefore that those words of Scripture may be produced where any such outward Covenant is contained I take outward Ordinances and other blessings to be a second part of or certain appurtenances to the blessings of the great Covenant of Grace and given by Covenant on the same condition of true faith as Justification it self is but allowed or given by Providence where and when God pleaseth and sometime to Infidels that never made profession as to some of them the Word and temporal mercies and not assured by promise to any ungodly man that from Providence receiveth them At last after this necessary explication I come to Mr. Bl's words which I propounded to Reply to And first when he saith A dogmatical faith entitleth to Baptism I reply 1. A meer Dogmatical Historical faith is only in the understanding and that not Practical neither Now if this be the condition of the outward Covenant then it may consist with a Renouncing Christ and open disclaiming him yea a persecuting the very Christian name For a man may speculatively and sleightly believe the word of God to be true and yet may openly profess I love the world and my pleasure and honour so much better then Christ that I am resolved I will be no Christian nor be baptized nor take Christ on the terms that he is offered on At least he that professeth Assent only and will not profess consent also doth not profess Christianity For Christianity and true faith lieth in the Wils consent as well as the understandings Assent 2. And how can Mr. Bl call this Dogmatical faith a covenanting when covenanting is known to be the expression of the Wils consent and not the profession of an opinion 3. If a Dogmatical faith be the condition and make a man a Christian then he may be a Christian against his Will which was yet never affirmed But Mr. Bl. in his explication of this Dogmatical faith addeth by way of exclusion though not affecting the heart to a full choice of Christ Where he seems to imply though he express it not that the faith which he meaneth doth affect the heart to a choice of Christ which is not full But if so then 1. It is much more then Assent or a meer Historical Dogmatical faith 2. But is the choice which he intimateth Real as to the Act and suited to the Object That is the real choice of such a Christ as is offered and on such terms If so it is Justifying faith If not either it is counterfeit as to the Act or but nominal as to the Object and is indeed no choosing of Christ Though perhaps it may not be suited to the Accidentals of the object yet to the Essentials it must or else it hath but equivocally the name as a corps hath the name of a man He saith The Covenant is the Ground of Baptism otheewise Church-membership would evince no Title c. Repl. 1. I take Gods precept to be the Ground of Baptism as it is officium a Duty both as to the baptizer and the baptized and his Promise or his Covenant Grant to be the Ground of mens Right to it as it is a Benefit given directly by God and their own true consent faith or covenanting which with me are all one for all that you say against it to be the condition of that Right But then I think that in foro Ecclesiae a dissembler may claim that Right which strictly he hath not and we must grant him what he claims when he brings a Probable ground of his claim And in that it is Ministers duty to Baptize such they may indirectly and quoad Ecclesiam be said to have Right to be Baptized I say Indirectly yea and improperly for it is not the result of Gods Covenant Grant to them but of his precept to his Ministers and his Instructions whom they ought to Baptize 2. I argued from Right of admission to Church-membership with Mr. T. and that Right I take the heart-covenant of Parent or parties themselves to be the condition of as to the Invisible Church-state and the Profession of that Covenant not alone but joyned with it to be the condition of true Right before God to Visible-membership though men are but to use him as one that hath true Right who by an hypocritical profession seems to have Right Where he takes me to grant his Antecedent that the Covenant is entred
I imagined 2. As the Donor of Christ and Life and the Author of the Promise or Deed of gift and so Christ as Testator he hath made our sincere faith the condition saying If thou believe thou shalt be saved Hereby we are bound to believe as a necessary means to salvation This is but a sanction of the first obligation 3. The like may be said of the threatning He that believeth not shall be damned which God addeth as Legislator to this Law so that every man is bound to sound Believing as the necessarie condition of salvation before he doth consent himself or oblige himself to it even by an obligation which is ten thousand fold stronger then any that he is capable of laying on himself 3. It is also a very high mistake to think that our Covenanting or Consent which is our actual believing is none of our condition when it is the great and principal part of our condition yea all the condition of our begun Justification not taking the word Faith too narrowly You will perhaps say These are our conditions as subjects but not as Covenanters Reply They are our conditions as subjects called to Covenant as we are the persons to whom the Covenant is offered They are constituted by God as Donor Benefactor and Author of the Covenant or Promise and not meerly as Rector It belongeth to the Donor to determine of the conditions of his own gift on which they shall become due or not Yet doth God make no transactions with men but as with subjects and therefore even when he deals with us as Benefactor and Donor in free gifts it is still as Dominus Rector Benefaciens he lays not by his Dominion or Soveraigntie nor these Relations to us 4. For your instance of servants and souldiers they leave out the great part of the condition of the Covenant of Grace which is that we consent to be servants and souldiers The Relation must first be entered God must be taken for our God and Christ for our Redeemer Lord and Saviour the Holy Ghost for our Guide and Sanctifyer This is Faith and Covenanting This goes before working and fighting But this Covenanting is the great condition of Gods Covenant As when the forementioned Prince is offered in marriage with his Dignities and Riches to a condemned beggar as it is a gift and covenant propounded on his part and actually to be entered it is consent or marriage-covenanting on her part that is the condition yea and all the condition of her first right to him and his riches and honors So in your instance It is the servants consent or covenant to have such a man for his master and the souldiers consent and covenanting to have such a man for his General that is the condition on which one hath all his first right to the Priviledges of the family and the other to the Priviledges of the Armie Is not this consent necessarie in our present case If you would have spoke to the point you should have said thus No servant is tyed sincerely to consent or covenant to be a servant before he have received his earnest No souldier is tyed to consent or covenant truly to be a souldier till he be listed which are both plainly false Baptism is as the listing Consent which is saving Faith is the heart covenant prerequisite to listing and not the work to be done after except you speak of the continuance of consent Baptism is the solemnizing our marriage with Christ And it is a strange marriage wherein the woman doth only promise that she will begin hereafter to take that man for her husband but not at present Nay where such present consent is not Requisite is a feâ—gned or nominal or half-consent the condition on which a woman hath Right to the man and his estate and a full consent hereafter the thing that she is engaged to 5. In your minor But faith that is Justifying to accept Christ is the condition to which Baptism engageth either you mean only the continuance of that faith and that is true but not your meaning I think Or you mean the beginning of that faith as doubtless the foregoing words shew that you do and then why had we not one word tending to the proof which would in this place have been very acceptable to me I will anon make an argument of the contrarie You seem to me in all this to mistake the very formal nature of a condition as if it received its denomination from our promise to perform it when as by the consent of all Lawyers that I have read of it it is denominated from the determination of the Donor Testator or other Imposer and most evidently and unquestionably it is so in unequal contracts where one is the Benefactor and hath the absolute power of disposing his own favors §. 44. Mr. Bl. THat Faith upon which Simon Magus in the Primitive times was baptized is that which admitteth to Baptism Simon himself believed and was Baptized Act. 8.13 But Simons Faith â—ell short of saving and justifying §. 44. R. B COncedo totum sed desideratur Conclusio That may be said to admit to Baptism which so qualifieth the person as that we are bound to Baptize him as being one that seemeth sound in believing as Simon did But this is not Entituling or having Coram Deo à faedere Right to Baptism nor doth prove that it is not saving Faith which God in his Covenant makes the condition prerequisite to such a Right to Baptism §. 45. Mr. Bl. 6. IN Case only justifying Faith give admission to Baptism then none is able to baptize seeing this by none is discerned and to leave it to our charity affirming that we may admit upon presumption of a title when God denies I have spoken somewhat Chap. and I refer to Mr. Hudson in his Vindication whom learned Mr. Baxter so highly commends to shew the unreasonabless of it §. 45. R.B. 1. SEing you have read what I have said to Mr. Tombes against this Objection I shall take it as needless to say more till you confute it 2. I say not that onely justifying Faith gives Admission to Baptism I say that the seeming or Probable Profession of such a faith gives Admittance 3. Nor is it left to our Charity but imposed on us as a Duty to Baptize those that profess sound belief but whether the profession be probably serious or not our understanding and not our Charity must judge And if you go not that way too then it seems you would Baptize a man that should apparently jest or deride Christ under colour of professing which were to Accept that as a profession which is no profession For it is no further a profession then it seems to be serious and express what is in the heart 4. Though God deny the justness of the hypocrites Title in foro Dei yet he doth not deny it to be our duty to deal with them for their profession as
not as a Redeemer by ransom or as one that is to justifie us but not to Sanctifie or Rule us each of these is true in suo genere but false if they pretend to be that which Scripture calls Faith in Christ and which denominateth Believers So is it to believe with the understanding speculatively and superficially and yet to Dissent with the will I think if a man say This is the Son the heir come let us kill him and the inheritance shall be ours we will not have this man Reign over us that these are not true Believers nor have right to Baptism though their belief that he is the heir be a Dogmatical Faith true in its kinde 2. As Amesius Medulla li. 1. cap. 3. § 20. Quamvis in Scripturis aliquando Assensus veritati quae est de Deo Christo Joh. 1.50 habetur pro vera fide includitur tamen semper specialis fiducia atque adeo omnibus in locis ubi sermo est de salutari fide vel praesupponitur fiducia in Messiam indicatur tantum determinatio vel applicatio ejus ad personam Jesu Christi vel per assensum illum designatur tanquam effectum per suam causam And as words of Knowledge and Assent do in Scripture oft imply affection and consent so on the contrary words of consent and affection do alwaies imply Knowledge and Assent And therefore Faith is sometime denominated from the Intellectual act Believing and sometime from the Wills act Receiving 3. Do you not know how ordinarily even saving Faith it self is denominated from the Intellectual Act alone when yet you 'l confess the Will is necessarily an Agent in this many texts might quickly be cited to that end Those that Amesius citeth may suffice Joh. 11.25 26 27. He that believeth in me shall live Believest thou this yea Lord I believe that thou art that Christ the Son of God that was to come into the world Such was Nathaniels faith Joh. 1.49 50. 1 Joh. 4.15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God God dwelleth in him and be in God And 1 Joh. 5.1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God Here is more then Right to Baptism The great doubt was then whether Christ were the true Messiah and therefore this was the greatest and most difficult part of Faith to Assent to this and therefore the whole is denominated from it it being supposed when they believed him to be the only sufficient and faithful Physitian that they were willing to be healed by him in his way 4. If you think as you seem by your answer to do that a man may Assent to the Truth of the Gospel with all his heart and yet be void of Justifying Faith you do not lightly err Though an unregenerate man may believe as many truths as the Regenerate yet not with all his heart Christ saith Math. 13. The word hath not rooting in him Doubtless whether or no the Practical understanding do unavoidably determine the Will yet God doth not sanctifie the understanding truly and leave the Will unsanctified which must be said if the Dogmatical Faith that is the Intellectual Assent of a wicked man be as strong as that of a true Believer Dr. Downam in his Treatise of Justification and against Mr. Pemble hath said enough of this to which I refer you I take that answer as equal to silence which yet Mr. Bl. so highly values as to say It will take away all scruple §. 52. HAving Replyed to your Answer I shall be bold to trouble you with some more Arguments to this point Mr. Blake affirmeth that Justifying Faith is the great Condition to which Baptism engageth and therefore not prerequisite to Baptism and that an acknowledgment of the Necessity of such Faith with engagement to it is sufficient for a title to the Seal and so it is a Dogmatical Faith which entitles to Baptism in which Baptism we must engage to believe with a lively and working Faith hereafter Against this Doctrine I argue 1. From Authority beginning with the lowest Argument The Reverend Assembly in their Advice for Church Government Printed after the Directory pag. 58. of the Church say thus Particular Churches in the Primitive times were made up of Visible Saints viz. of such as being of Age professed faith in Christ and obedience unto Christ according to the Rule of Faith and Life taught by Christ and his Apostles and of their children and they cite Act. 2 â—8 41 last compared with Act. 5.14 1 Cor. 1.2 compared with 2 Cor. 9.13 Now if the Profession of this Saint-ship in Faith and obedience according to the Rule were necessary then the profession of Justifying Faith was necessary For this is justifying Faith without doubt And if so then it is not a Faith short of this which is the condition of Church member-ship for then the profession of that other imperfect Faith might suffice of which more anon See also the Assemblies Confession cap. 28. § 1.6 and the two Catechisms of Baptism where 1. observe the ends of Baptism that it Sealeth Remission Regeneration Adoption c. 2. the subject that none are to be Baptized at age till they profess their Faith in Christ and Obedience to him Which if they do sincerely no doubt that Faith is no less then justifying See also what that truly Iudicious Learned Reverend Divine Mr. Gataker hath Replyed to Dr. Ward viz. against those words which I confuted not knowing that it was Mr. Gataker that the Doctor dealt with in Mr. Gatakers Desceptatio de Baptismatis Infantilis vi efficaciâ— pag. 71. where he also cites Luther Calvin Bucer Whitaker c. and therefore I will cite no more Mr. Marshal in his late Sermon for Unity I mentioned before A hundred might easily and truly be cited to this purpose Argu. 2. My Second Argument shall be from the Testimony and Practice of the purest Antiquity 1 Justin Martyr in his second Apologie relating the Churches custom in Baptizing saith As many as being perswaded do believe these things to be true which we teach and do promise to live according to them they first learn by prayer and fasting to beg pardon of God for their former sins our selves also joyning our prayer and fasting Then they are brought to the water and born again in the same way as we our selves were born again So for the other Sacrament he addeth This food we call the Eucharist to which no man is admitted but he that believeth the Truth of our Doctrine being washed in the Laver of Regeneration for Remission of sin and that so liveth as Christ hath taught 2. Irenaeus l. 4. c. 13. shews that Abrahams Faith by which he was justified is the same with the Christian Faith yea with that whereby we begin to be saved And cap. 76. having reference to the Baptismal Covenant wherein men deliver up themselves to Christ he saith Si igitur tradideris ei quod
but ye are Justified in the name of the Lord Jesus c. And Expositors judge that the Holy-Ghost refers to the sign as well as the thing signified to the Sacrament as well as Substance when he makes washing so necessary and speaks of washing us from our sins in the blood of Christ Rev. 1.5 Though he make them not equal in necessity Joh. 3.5 Except a man be born of water c. Heb. 10.22 Let us draw neer with a true heart in full assurance of faith having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodyes washed with pure water If it be the end of Baptism to wash our hearts from an evil conscience i. e. à Conscientia mali then it is the end of Baptism to Seal the present Remission of sin But c. therefore Tit. 3.5 He saved us by the washing of Regeneration It is a saving work that Baptism is appointed to do By Regeneration I understand our new Relative state at least principally He that is in Christ is a new creature old things are passed away behold all things are become new He hath a new head is a member of a new societie the old guilt of sin is done away the old enmity between God and us we have a new Father new brethren new right to farther blessings as well as a new heart Regeneration is too narrowly taken for a Renovation of the heart alone So that I think Remission and Reconciliation and Adoption are meant by Regeneration in Tit. 3.5 and Col. 2.11 12. The speaking of Baptism and the heart-circumcision therein received or professed saith they put off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ being buryed with him in Baptism c. So in 2 Pet. 1.9 The Apostle saith He that lacketh these things is blinde and cannot see far off and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins that is Sacramentally and as far as the Church could go in purifying him which shews that the end of Baptism is by obsignation and solemnization to purge men from their old sins or as Paul speaks The sins that are past through the forbearance of God c. Rom. 5. So that Remission of sins at present being the end of Baptism rightly received it must needs follow that Justifying faith is prerequisite to the right receiving it and that it is not some other Faith nor is it enough to promise Justifying Faith for hereafter Argu. 9. If the Apostles use to communicate the proper Titles of the Justified to all that are Baptized till they see them prove apostates or hypocrites then they did take all the Baptized to be probably justified though they might know that there were hypocrites among them yet either they knew them not or might not denominate the body from a few that they did know But the Antecedent is true therefore I need not cite Scriptures to prove that the baptized are called by the Apostles Believers Saints Disciples Christians Mr. Blake hath done it already chap. 28. Now who knows not that salvation is made the Portion of Believers Saints Disciples But what is it another sort of them or doth Scripture use to divide Saints as the Genus into two Species Not that I know of It is but as an aequivocum in sua aequivocata The Apostles naming men according to their appearance and Profession and calling them such as they probably might be Why else should they call them such had not they seemed to be such and professed it The names therefore do not primarily agree to these as a true Species of Believers Saints Disciples Christians but secondarily as the name of a man to a Corps or as the name of a Habit to a disposition by translation or Analogie But to put the matter beyond doubt I wish Mr. Bl. to consider that it s not only these forementioned titles but even the rest which he will acknowledge proper to the Regenerate which are given by the Apostles generally to the baptized Adoption is ascribed to them Gal. 3.26 27. For yee are all the children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ 2. The same â—ext ascribeth to them Union with Christ yee have put on Christ 3. And Union with his body ye are all one in Christ Jesus 4. Yea the next verse addes And if ye be Christs ye are Abrahams seed and heirs according to the Promise What more proper to the truly sanctified So the Apostle saith to all the Churches of Colloss in general 5. That they had put off the body of sin being buryed with Christ in Baptism wherein also they were risen with him through the Faith of the operation of God Col. 2.11 12. 6. Yea in 1 Cor. 6.11 He tells the Corinthians they were washed sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus so that Justification it self is ascribed to them Col. 2.13 The Apostle tells them God had quickned them with Christ having forgiven â—hem all trespasses 7. Yea the like he saith of their salvation 1 Cor. 15.2 Eph. 2.5 6 7 8. yea he tells them verse 19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and sorreiners but fellow-Citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God and lest any should think that Saints and Citizens and the houshold of God do here signifie but common Priviledges of the visible Church he addes And are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-Stone in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth to an holy Temple in the Lord in whom you also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit Where most planly the Church is manifested to be but one and that one to have saving Priviledges and consequently those that have not these to be but equivocally Christians Many more texts might be produced where the most particular Priviledges of the Saints are given to whole Churches in common which 〈◊〉 that the name is by Analogy or equivocally given from the sincere to the rest because we are to judge and denominate on probabilities Argu. 10. If the profession of Justifying Faith be requisite in Baptism then the Faith so professed is requisite to the right receiving of it and not only to be performed hereafter But such profession is requisite therefore The major is as true as that God requireth no man to lye and dissemble and to profess that with his mouth which is not in his heart nor doth he make lying the condition of his Covenant let them call it an outward Covenant or what they will if it be Gods Covenant this can be none of the condition For it must first in order be a Dutie before it be made Conditional And no lye is a Dutie Professing is a Dutie to them that have the thing they profess but to others immediately and in sensu composito it is a hainous sin and
commands them to preach the Gospel then he enacteth that on this preaching He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved It is then a saving Faith It is plain that Christ purposely putteth it before baptism as its due place even as that preaching to which Faith is here related is put before and in that he gives us here the exact compendium of his new Law And if it be not this saving Faith that goes before baptism then Christ doth not so much as mention it And to imagine that in this summe of his Covenant he doth both leave wholly unmentioned that Faith which is the prerequisite condition of Baptism and also put in its place another Faith which is consequential this is to suppose Christ to clogg the most essential parts and clearest compendiums of his Law with such insuperable obscurities that it cannot be understood And say the like by all other Scripture and you will make it more dark then the Papists accuse it to be Act. 16.31 32 33. The Jaylor asks what he shall do to be saved Paul answers him Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house to which end they spake to him the word of the Lord and to all that were in his house and so He was Baptized believing in God with all his house The Faith that Paul here commends to him was a saving Faith expresly He that is said to believe upon that command and instruction is supposed to believe with the same faith that was so required of him Act. 10.47 48. The Gentiles there were not only true Believers but had the Holy-Ghost before baptism Act. 16.15 The Lord opened Lydias heart which seems to signifie a special operation of the Spirit before she was baptized Act. 18.8 Crispus and all his house believed on the Lord which signifieth more then an Historical Faith So Act. 19.4 5. It was believing on Christ and in his name that was the Antecedent to their baptism Mat. 28.19 Go Disciple all Nations baptizing them that Discipling which is here commanded is in order to go before baptism but it is making men sincere Disciples that is here commanded therefore It is presupposed what ever Discipling it be that it is not the Event but the Endeavor that is here made their dutie And if it be only common Discipleship then the Apostles and other Preachers of the Gospel are not commanded to endeavor to make men true sound Believers and Disciples till they had first baptized them which is untrue Moreover the Baptismal Faith must be a Faith in Christs blood for the application of the water signifieth the application of Christs blood and therefore their reception of the one signifieth the other But Faith in Christs blood is Justifying Faith Rom. 3.25 26. The Righteousness of God which is by the Faith of Jesus Christ is unto all and upon all them that believe Rom. 3.22 It is therefore but equivocally called believing in Christ as being but some part of that belief which attaineth not this Righteousness How many times over and over do Christ and his Apostles promise pardon and salvation to all that believe in Christ without distinction of believing whence it seems evident that it is but improperly and equivocally called Believing in Christ which is not Justifying and saying See Joh. 3.15 16 18. and 11.25 26. and 7.38 and 12.46 44. and 5.24 and 6.35 40 47. and 14.12 1 Joh. 5.1 5 10. 1 Pet. 2.6 Rom. 9.33 and 4.5 and 10.11 Act. 13.48 Moreover how easie is it to bring many Texts that prove that it was true saying Faith it self that Christ and his Apostles preached to men and endeavored to bring them to before baptism Nay finde any one of them that ever did otherwise whereas according to Mr. Blakes Doctrine they should have perswaded them to a Dogmatical Faith only before baptism I mean to be before performed and a justifying Faith after But I will adde no more of this Argu. 23. The Church hath ever supposed baptized persons to be saved unless they afterward did violate that Covenant Therefore they supposed them to have the condition of salvation Faith and Repentance Hence those high elogies of baptism in most of the Fathers wherein they are now mis-interpreted by many as if they ascribed it to the external ordinance whereas they presuppose as the blood and Covenant of Christ so the right qualifications of the partie baptized upon which supposition which we are bound to entertain of all that make a probable profession they did so predicate the glorious effects of Baptism as well they might Argu. 24. Mr. Blakes Doctrine of Baptismal Faith leaves us in utter obscuritie so that no man according to it can tell whom to Baptize He hath not that I can finde given us any description of that Faith which entitles to baptism and I verily think is not able to tell us what he would have himself to be taken for it If it were a meer Dogmatical Faith then those should be baptized that were utterly unwilling or at least unwilling to take God for their God or Christ for their Lord and Saviour and the Holy-Ghost for their Sanctifier and should openly profess I will not have this man reign over me for I cannot yet spare the pleasure of my sin If Mr. Bl. mean that there is requisite somewhat of the will and consent though not so much as to justifie why did he not tell us what acts of the Will they be that are necessary Is it only a consent to have God called theiâ— God and themselves named his people I will not be so uncharitable as to think that is his meaning Is â—t only a consent to be baptized and to hear the Word and receive the Sacraments then might it stand with the foresaid disclaiming of the Government of God and the Redeemer and so of obedience I think by that time Mr. Bl. hath but adventured to give us an exact definition or description of that Faith which he makes prerequisite and sufficient to baptism which I hereby intreat him to do he will have set us up so fair a mark to shoot at that with a very little skill it may be smitten to the dust Argu. 25. 1 Joh. 2.19 They went out from us but they were not of us for if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us but they went out that it might be made manifest that they were not all of us They were not therefore truly Christians Disciples Church-Members but equivocally Argu. 26. I will end as I begun with humane testimony 1. Our Divines against the Papists do generally plead that hypocrites are not true members of the universal Church but as a woodden leg is to the body I am loth to turn over books and transcribe without need but I shall soon do it if it be denied 2. Our Divines against the Arminians do suppose the first act of believing to be the first time that God
therefore God made man Or thus All men on earth are sinners I am a man on earth therefore I am a sinner In all these if you seal the major proposition or affirm it true you do indeed though not in terms affirm or seal the conclusion morally The confession that you say I make reacheth no higher But observe that its only morally that I say you may be said to say or seal the conclusion because unquestionable naturals are presupposed in Morals and Legals §. 66. Mr. Bl. HE that Believeth is Justified and shall be saved is his major Proposition This he saith is sealed unquestionably when indeed I have ever thought and yet think that it is not at all sealed Sacraments seal not to the truth of any general Proposition but with particular application as they are dispensed so they seal but they are applyed particularly Take Eat c. This Mr. Baxter seeth pag. 69. and therefore in that absolute universal Proposition he finds a particular Conditional Promise to which he saith God sealeth If thou believe I do pardon thee and will save thee §. 66. R. B. ALL this is answered sufficiently already Only observe that by shall be saved and I will save thee I mean but shall have or I will give thee present Right to salvation For the continuance of that Right hath more then Faith for its condition §. 67. Mr. Bl. THat it sealeth not to the truth of the minor Proposition But I believe he says is beyond dispute giving in his reasons It should seal then to that which is not written for no scripture saith that I do believe so certainly Sacraments do seal they seal to that which is not directly written they seal with particular application but the man to whom they are applyed hath not his name in scripture written they seal to an individual person upon the Warrants of a general Promise though I do not say that Proposition is sealed yet me thinks this reason is scarce cogent §. 67. R. B. YOu deny not my assertion but argue against the reason of it as before by telling us what you thought so here by affirming the contrary certain you attempt the confutation of mine To your instance I give these two returns 1. It is equivocation when our question is of sealing to a thing as the subjectum obsignatum for to instance in sealing to a person as the finis cui The seal that is to application as an end not to application as the subject sealed 2. But if you respect not the person as the end of application but as the party expressed in the Promise which is sealed then I say If you can prove that the universal Proposition doth not in sense contain the singulars so that this singular If thou believe thou shalt be saved be not in Moral Law sense contained in this universal All that believe shall be saved the Law supposing them all to be men and sinners then I will prove that God doth not properly seal to the singulars But till then I suspend §. 68. Mr. Bl. MR Baxter sayes The great question is whether they seal to the Conclusion as they do to the major Proposition To which he answers No directly and properly it doth not If the Proposition seems directly to prove the Conclusion then that which directly confirms any Proposition in a rightly formed Syllogism confirms the Conculsion If the Conclusion be not sealed then no Proposition is sealed or else the Syllogism is ill-framed §. 68. R. B. TThis is too new Doctrine to be received without one word of proof Doth he that sealeth the major of this following Syllogism seal the Conclusion All that truly Receive Christ are the Sons of God and shall be saved Judas did truly receive Christ therefore Judas was the Son of God and shall be saved I think both Premises must be true before the Conclusion will thence be proved true And it is not sealed by God when it is false §. 69. Mr. Bl. REasons are given This Conclusion is nowhere written in Scripture and therefore is not properly the object of Faith whereas the seals are for the confirmation of our Faith To which I say It is written Virtually though not expresly That I shall rise in Judgement is nowhere written yet it is of Faith that I shall rise and when I have concluded Faith in my heart as well as Reason in my Soul knowing my self to be a Believer as I know my self to be a man I may as well conclude that I shall rise to Life as that I shall rise to Judgement §. 69 R. B. 1. WHen you oppose Virtually to Expresly you seem by Virtually to mean in sense though not in terms If so then your Syllogism is tautological But take it in what sense you will in any propriety and I deny that it is Virtually written in Scripture that you or I do Believe or yet that you or I are Justified and shall be saved Yet I confess that some Conclusions may be said to be Interpretativè vel secundum loquutionem moralem in Scripture when but one of the premises is there but that is when the other is presupposed as being as certain but of this more anon where you speak of this subject more largely 2. To your instance I say It is by Faith and natural knowledg mixt that you conclude you shall rise again The Conclusion participateth of both Premises as to the ground of its certainty That it doth sequi is a right gathered Conclusion is known only by Reason and not by Faith that it is true is known partly by Reason and partly by Faith when the Premises belong to both Yet though in strict sense it be thus mixt in our ordinary discourse we must denominate it from one of the Premises and usually from the more notable alwaies from the more Debile Scripture saith All men shall rise Reason saith you are a man Though the Conclusion here parâ—â—â—e of both yet it is most fitly said to be de fide both because Scripture intended each particular man in the Universal and because it is supposed as known to all that they are men and therefore the other part is it that resolveth the doubt and is the notable and more debile part It s I know undoubted with you that Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem Now though Gods Word in it self is most infallible yet in respect of the evidence to us it is generally acknowledged that it is far short of natural principles and objects of sense in so much that men have taken it for granted that the objects of faith are not evident of which I will not now stand to speak what I think but touch it anon Therefore it being more evident that you are a man then it is that all men shall rise it is fittest to say the Conclusion is de fide as the more debile part But can we say so of the present Conclusion in question Have you a fuller evidence that you
I believe from whence the Conclusion will follow I shall be pardoned and saved And I infer the Major being sealed the Conclusion that rightly issues out of it having its strength from it is sealed likewise sealed to him that can make good that Assumption But I Believe and upon these terms that he be a believer §. 76. R. B. 1. THe difference is so small that were it not for some scattered by-passages I should scarce have replyed to you 2. All the quarrel ariseth from the divers understanding of the term sealed I suppose that you include the confirming of the Receiver and the conferring of Right to the Benefit both which I have said are done Conditionally as being to follow the Delivery and Reception whereas I take it for the Testimonium secundarium or that Obsignation whereby the Instrument is owned the following effects belonging to it in a further respect I ever granted that by the sealing of the Conditional Promise the Believer hath a singular help to raise the Conclusion and be confirmed in it but not a help sufficient without the discerning of his own Faith which is the Assumption So that if you will participaliter and consequenter the Conclusion may be said to be sealed to him that hath the Condition whether he see it oâ— not But totaliter directè only the Conditional grant is sealed 3. The Conclusion issues from and hath its strength from both Premises jointly and no more from one alone then if it were none at all and therefore where only one of the Premises is sealed and the other unsealed there the Conclusion can be but as I said participaliter consequenter sealed And though I grant thus much to you for reconciliation yet I conceive it unfit to say at all as in proper speech that the Conclusion is sealed which I make good by this Argument Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem vel deteriorem At Propositio non obsignata est pars debilior vel deterior therefore Conclusio sequitur Propositionem non obsignatam And so it is on the same grounds to be denominated not sealed as a Conclusion is to be denominated Contingent when one of the Premises is Contingent and the other Necessary or to be Negative when one of the Premises is Negative and the other Affirmative or to be Particular when one of the Premises is Particular and the other Universal And therefore I still say that it is fittest for you and me to say that this Conclusion Thou A. B. art Justified and hast Right to Salvation is an unsealed Conclusion till you can prove the Minor sealed Thou A. B. art a sincere Believer For my part I know not what objection can be made against either part of the fore-recited Argument the major being a Common Canon or Rule that holds in all Figures and the Minor being yielded by your self else I would answer to it §. 77. Mr. Bl. MR. Baxters fourth and fifth Positions in the closing up of his Discourse should be considered The Sacrament sealeth to Gods part of the Conditional Covenant and sealeth this Conditional Promise not Conditionally but absolutely as of an undoubted Truth To which an easie answer may be given in order to a fair Reconciliation When the Covenant tyes to the Condition and the Sacraments seal upon the same terms that the Covenant tyes the seal is properly Conditional in case there is any such thing in the world as a Conditional seal Neither is this Conditional Promise any absolute undoubted Truth but upon supposal of the Condition put and so both Promise and Seal absolutely bind §. 77. R. B. 1. I Never heard of nor knew a Conditional sealing in the world though I have oft heard of the effects of Obligation and Collation of Right to be Conditional which are not only separable from the Terminus proximus of sealing but also are directly the effects of the Covenant Promise Testament c. only and but remotely of the Seals inasmuch as that Seal is a full owning of the Instrument of Conveyance Yet such a thing as a Conditional sealing may be imagined seeing sealing is a Moral Civil action and so dependeth quoad formam on the will of the Agent after the matter is put the Agent may if he please put the matter now and introduce the form upon a future Condition or a present or a past as if he should set the wax and material seal to a Deed of Gift with this addition I hereby seal to this or own it as my deed if such a man be now living in France or if such a Ship be safe arrived or if such a man shall do such a thing otherwise this shall be no seal But such exceptions or conditions being alwaies added to the Instrument or Principal obligation or conveyance and being of no use as to the seals only I never heard of such nor I think ever shall do For if all these or any of these Conditions be in the Deed or Obligation the Seal doth but confirm that Conditional Obligation though it be absolutely and actually a Seal and therefore doth not oblige the Author actually but conditionally and therefore to feign a Conditional sealing besides the conditional Covenanting or Granting seems very useless and vain to say no more 2. I confess that neither Promise nor Seal binde absolutely till the Condition be performed which I pray you remember hereafter if you be tempted to think any person in Covenant with God the mutual Covenant where both stand obliged before they perform the Condition of the first benefits or right But when you say that the Conditional Promise is not any absolute undoubted Truth but upon supposal of the Condition put you make me see still the necessity of mutual forbearance and that all our writings must have an allowance as it were in respect to some inconsiderateness and the Authors not to be charged with holding all the Doctrines which they write I dare not say it is Mr. Blakes judgment that Gods conditional Promises be not absolute undoubted Truth till men perform the condition 1. Though they are not Absolute Promises yet they are Absolutely and not Conditionally true Otherwise either it must be said that till the condition be performed they are Actually false and Conditionally true or else that they are neither capable of Truth or Falshood The former I will not dare to supppose from you nor yet the latter For whether you put it in this form Whosoever will Believe shall be Justified or in this If thou wilt Believe thou shalt be Justified there is no question that both must be either true or false and not like an Interrogation that is capable of neither 2. And then as it is an Absolute Truth so it is an undoubted Truth For Veraciâ—as Divina est formale objectum fidei and if Gods Truth be not undoubted then our Faith hath an uncertain Foundation and Christianity is not undoubtedly a true Religion But I charge none of
these on you as not doubting but it is an oversight §. 78. Mr. Bl. WHen Caleb had engaged himself He that smiteth Kiriath-Sepher and taketh it to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife Othniel the Son of Kenaz taking it there was an absolute tye upon him for performance Josh 15 16 17. When Saul promised his Daughter to David on this condition that he would bring him an hundred of the foreskins of the Philistins 1 Sam. 18.25 David having made it good with advantage now there is an absolute tye upon him §. 78. R B THis is nothing but what is granted I yield that God is not as it were obliged till men performe the Condition But the Question is whether he Absolutely sealeth before and not whether that Seal oblige before § 79. Mr. Bl. EVen the Arminians Conditional incompleate Election upon Condition of Faith and perseverance they confess is absolute and compleat upon supposal of Faith and perseverance This I take to be Mr. Baxters meaning that upon supposal of Faith it Absolutely sealeth which I willingly grant but it is administred to many who never put in that Condition nor come up to the terms of God that believing they may be saved and so in our sense it sealeth Conditionally §. 79. R. B. 1. I Have better expressed my own meaning It is pitty that the Reader should be troubled with so much about so low a question which of us two doth best express our meaning but that I hope he may gather some things more useful on the by In your sense if it be according to your terms God doth not actually Seal at all to any but the Godly which is my maine Argument against you A Conditional seal is not a seal till the Condition be performed §. 80. Mr. Bl. ANd I can make nothing else of Mr. Tombes his Aptitudinal and Actual seal but that the Sacrament hath an Aptitude to seal in an Absolute way to all that communicate it doth Actually seal to Believers and Penitent ones §. 80. R. B. 1. I Perceive Mr. Tombes and you are more of a minde then I was aware of 2. Sealing of must not be confounded with sealing to as respecting the end nor the next end which is Essential to the Seal as the Terminus to the Relation with more separable ends It is in regard of the first only that I spake against Mr. Tombes and affirmed it to be Actual and not only Aptitudinal but not in regard of the Obligation as we may speak on God or the actual conveyance of Right which follow the condition which I desire Mr. Tombes to take notice of according to my foregoing explication if he mean to Reply to that §. 81. Mr. Bl. NEither let any think that here I seek a starting hole to recede from any thing that heretofore I have published on this subject In my answer to Mr. Tombes pag. 99. I explain my self no otherwise having quoted Dr. Ames and Mr. Rutherford in the words now recited I there add The Conditional seal of the Sacraments is made Absolute by our putting in the Condition of believing c. In case my answer had been in Mr. Baxters hand when his Appendix came out as he saies it was not that he might have seen how I explained my self I suppose he would have seen that in the result of the whole I little differ from him so that I can scarce see that when the matter is brought home that I have any adversary §. 81. R. B. 1. IT is so rare a thing for men to manifest so much ingenuity and self denyal and impartial love to the Truth as freely to recant what they have once asserted when they finde it a mistake that if this had been your case I would not have been one that should have blamed you for it or charged you with unconstancy or levity To err is common to all men but freely to recant it is not so I never write but with a supposition that I shall manifest the weakness of my Intellect and do that which needs reformation 2. I did not so much as pretend you to be my Adversary I did defend you and not argue against you and therefore you have little need to perswade me to have lower thoughts of our differences then I did express or that you and I were no adversaries But though I make light of our seeming difference about sealing I must intreat you to remember that I not only maintain my former Assertion that the Conclusion I A. B. am Justified is not de fide but that I account it a matter of far greater moment It hath been too common Doctrine among the most renowned Divines that it is not only de fide but every mans duty also yea a part of the Creed and so a fundamental for to Believe that our sins are remitted for so they expound the Article of Remission of sins I will not name the Authors because I honor them and would not seem to disparage them and the Learned know them already yea they earnestly press men to Believe the pardon of their own sins in particular and tell them that they have but the Faith of Devils else By which dangerous Doctrine 1. most men are perswaded to believe a falshood for most are not forgiven 2. The careless world is driven on faster to presumption to which they are so prone of themselves 3. Painful Ministers are hindred and their labors frustrated whose business is first to break mens false hopes and peace which they finde so hard a work that they need not resistance The ungodly that I deal with are so confident that their sin is forgiven and God will not damn them for it that all that I can say is too little to shake their confidence which is the nurse of their sin 4. Gods word yea the Articles of our Creed must be abused to do Satan this service and mens Souls this wrong All the world cannot finde so strong a prop to the Kingdom of the Devil nor so powerful an encouragement to presumption or any sin as mistaken Scripture either misinterpreted or misapplyed 5. When wicked men that have but the Faith of Devils are immediately required to believe the pardon of their own particular sins and this made to be de fide God is dishonored with the charge of such untruths as if falshoods were de fide and God commanded men to believe them And for the Godly themselves it hath in a lower degree many of the same inconveniences If there be any one that hath as good Evidence of his soundness in Faith Love and Repentance as that the Word of God is true and all sound Believers are Justified what is such a man to many a thousand that have no such Evidence yea and for that man it is impossible that his Evidence should be as constant as Scripture Evidence though it were as full Scripture Evidence varieth not as the Evidence of Grace doth in our mutable unconstant
leave to Judge those Brethren that oppose me as fallible and subject to error as all the Primitive Fathers were and therefore that I may be no more blamed or thought singular for contradicting them then they are for contradicting the Primitive Church I know as Austin saith de Civitate Dei li. 22. c. 30. Servandi gradus erant Divini muneris ut primum daretur liberum arbitrium quo non-peccare posset homo novissimum quo peccare non posset atque illud ad comparandum meritum hoc ad recipiendum praemium pertineret And the case of the Intellect being the same we must stay til this time of Reward be come before we shall receive our non posse errare I know no Brother that opposeth me doth pretend to Infallibility All that I desire by my far greater advantage of humane Testimony is but to expugn prejudice that I may stand on even ground with them that contend with me And could I but prevail for this that the cause might be decided by meer Scripture-reason and humane Authority wholly stand by and the Reader could but impartially consider things without being byassed to any side or party as if he knew not what any man else doth judge of it I should then make little doubt of the good issue of the Controversie The most that I meet with that explain against my judgement are they that confess that they know not what it is or else apprehend it to be what it is not but whatever it is some that they value are against it and that is it that satisfieth them that I am in an error I do unfeignedly desire that in dark Controversies beyond their reach the unlearned people would more regard the generality of sober Godly Divines then any single and singular Teacher yea though it fall out that he be in the Truth as long as the Evidence of that Truth is out of their reach But this may not encourage any to shut their eyes or to neglect to search after the Evidence which they might discern much less may it excuse such unfaithfulness in Divines themselves nor yet may it encourage any to captivate their judgement to a party against the general judgement of the Church For if I were on one side and all the Divines in England on the other there is yet the same reason to prefer all the first Churches before all them as there is to prefer all them before me In a word I shall ever think him more culpably singular who differeth from Christ and his Apostles and all his Church for 1200 or 1400 years then he that differeth from any party now living and differeth not from them forementioned And how the case stands in this between me and those Reverend Divines that oppose me in the foresaid points of difference I am heartily content to refer to any sober impartial Reader that takes not things on trust from others nor judgeth of the Doctrine of antient writers by any imperfect dismembred parcels Georgius Calixtus Epitom Theolog. Moral pag. 463. INterrogati quae fides nostra quae doctrina respondemus eam esse fidem doctrinam nostram quam Complectitur symbolum Apostolicum symbolum Nicaenum Constantinopolitanum Athanasianum Anathematismi Ephesini Confessio Chalcedonensis Quae Nestorianorum Eutichianorum reliquiis quinta sexta synodi opposuerunt Quae item Pelagianis Africana plenaria sive ut vocari solet milevitana synodus Arausicana secunda synodus opposuerunt Haec symbola hae confessiones declarationes continent non modo quae Credere sine quibus fidem assensum prabere hominem Christianum oportet sine quibus creditis atque cognitis salvari nequit sed illis etiam qui haec ipsa docendo tractant aliis exponunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quam teneant praescribunt Quae autem hisce symbolis confessionibus declarationibus comprehenduntur è Sacra Scriptura hausta sunt quippe in iis quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi c. Denique exercemus nos ad conscientiam habendam sine offensa apud Deum homines semper Lutherus referente Hopffnero Saxon. Evangel p. 110. NIhil pestilentius in Ecclesia doceri potest quam si ea quae necessaria non sunt necessaria fiant Hac enim tyrannide conscientiae illaqueantur Libertas fidei extinguitur mendacium pro veritate Idolum pro Deo Abominatio pro sanctitate colitur I conclude with that of Rup Meldenius elsewhere once before cited Paraenes citante C. Bergio F. 2. Verbo dicam si nos servaremus in Necessariis Unitatem in Non-necessariis Libertatem in Utrisque charitatem optimo certe loco essent res nostrae Ita fiat Amen FINIS POSTSCRIPT HAving perceived by a friend that perused these Papers since the Printing of them that the n. 5th § 11. p. 25. against Mr. Blake is through too great brevity like to be misunderstood I thought meet to adde this Explication I distinguish between the Real Operations and Mutations on mans soul by Objects and the Conveyance of Right to several Benefits by the Covenant of God It is not the former that I speak of in that place I confess that as the Apprehension of one of Gods Attributes makes one effect on the soul and the apprehension of another makes another effect so the apprehension of Christs Kingdome Righteousness Death Obedience Intercession Judgement c. do make also their several Impressions according to the Nature of the thing apprehended But I utterly deny that it is so in Conveying Right to these as much as I deny that Justification is Sanctification or a Real Change of our Qualities as it is This therefore is my Argument If the Apprehension of Christs Righteousness and no other Act should strictly be the Justifying Act of Faith and that eo nomine because it is the object of that apprehension which is the matter of our Justification then it would follow 1. That the Apprehension of nothing else is the Justifying Act. 2. And that we have Right to every other particular Mercy eo nomine because we apprehend that Mercy and so our Right to every particular Benefit of Christ were Received by a distinct Act of Faith But the Consequent is false Therefore so is the Antecedent The minor only requires proof which is proved by the tenour of the Covenant of Grace which Giveth us Christ and with him all things He that hath the Son hath Life He that believeth on him shall not perish nor come into Condemnation As many as Received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God So that one entire faith which is the Receiving of Christ as he is offered that is as our Saviour and King is the Condition of our Right to all particular Benefits Godliness hath the promise of this life and that to come It is a womans taking such a man for her Husband that Gives
her first Interest in him and then in all that he hath It is not accepting this house and that Land and that Servant c. that gives her a distinct right in them There is not a marrying to all these and a particular Acceptance of every of his Goods and Chattel requisite to a right in them though there be to a use of them 2. And the Opinion being utterly unproved is sufficiently confuted In what Book that ever was written have these nice distinguishers proved their Doctrine by Scripture or sound reason Lex non distinguit ergo c. 3. And it discovers its own absurdity For if this be true then to apprehend Christs death is the only act that gives right to that and to apprehend his obedience to that and to apprehend Adoption is the only act that gives right to that and so of all other benefits So that there should be one act of Faith giving right to Christ himself and another giving right to pardon another to sentential Justification another to Adoption another to the Spirit and Sanctification another to Perseverance another to Glory Yea one to every particular gift or part of Sanctification and one to the pardon of every particular known sin that is pardoned One to the Gospel written another to the Ministry one to health another to life and one to every blessing And so that act of faith which Receives Adoption should not Justifie nor that which Receives Christ himself neither directly but only that which receiveth Justification Whereas it is one Reception or Act of faith morally taken Apprehending the entire object that God hath made the Condition of his Promise So that to apprehend Christ as the Donor of Glory doth as much towards our Justification as apprehending him as Justifier And to Believe in him as our Sanctifier and King doth as Really conduce to our Justification and as much as the apprehending him as one that will pardon our sins He that believeth shall be saved is the simple Scripture doctrine 4. And if all this were not so yet it is the apprehending of Christ as King according to them then that must be the Pardoning and Justifying act more then as a Sacrifice For as Satisfier and a Ransome he only meriteth our Pardon and Justification But to pardon by Grant is unquestionably an act of Soveraignty as such It being not the pardon of a private injury but a publick Crime that we have to speak of And to Justifie by Plea is Christs act as an Advocate and not as a Sacrifice And to Justifie by sentence is Christs act as Judge So that if their own Doctrine did hold of the diversifying of our Right by the diversity of the formal reason of the object apprehended then would it but infallibly prove against them that it is the Receiving of Christ as King and Judge that is the Act of Pardoning and Justifying faith more then the Receiving him as a Sacrifice or Ransome FINIS * * Seneca Epist ad Luc. 102. Non debuit hoc nobis esse propositum argutias serere Philosophiam in â—as angustias ex sua Majestate detraâ—ere Quanto sâ—tius est ire aperta via recta quam sibi ipsi flexus disponere quos cum magna molestia debeas relegere Neque enim quicquam aliud istae Disputationes sunt quam inter se peritè captantium lusus * * Yet if you be able to believe him he tels his Readeâ— he is sure there is no Pepper sprinkled throughout his Discourse nor is he Couscious to himself of the least bitterness c. * * Indeed I more desired in Mr. K. a conscience so tender as would have strained at some of all those palpable untruths in matter of fact then a milder language to my self But he tels us in his Epistle that Aliquando innocentius delinquendum erat ne deessent in quibus condonandis c. Et quidni mihig ratuler faelicia quadam erratula c. Whether he think also that he should innocentius delinquere faeliciter errare that there may be matter for the honour of Gods Grace as well as mans I cannot tell Whether faith be the Instrument of Justification * * I suppose the word Act is used so largely as to include the Law it self Of the instrumentality of the Covenant Whether justifying faith be prerequisite to Baptism Rivet in Animad in Annotat. Grotli in Cassandr in art 4. p. 13. fol. Fides quae non parit obedientiae propositum non est vera fides Haec cum primum ingeneratur cum poenitentia conjuncta est quae non potest esse sine obedientiae proposito Fidei formatae insormis apud Veteres Catholicos ne Vestigium quidem reperitur si de fide Justificante salvifica c.