man which is corrupt accordâ—ng to the deceitful lusts of the flesh He that signally professeth his present Consent to be washed by the blood of Christ from his former filthiness and guilt and to lay by the filthiness of Flesh and Spirit doth eo nomine profess saving faith and Repentance But all that are baptized with the baptism of Christs Institution do by the very voluntary Reception of Baptism so profess therefore they do thereby profess saving Faith and Repentance 3. Quo ad modum It s commonly confessed by us to the Anabaptists as our Commentators declare that in the Apostles times the Baptized were dipped over head in the water and that this signified their Profession both of believing the Burial and Resurrection of Christ and of their own present renouncing the World and Flesh or dying to sin and living to Christ or rising again to newness of Life or being buried and risen again with Christ as the Apostle expoundeth in the fore-cited Texts of Col. 3. Rom. 6. And though as is before said we have thought it lawful to disuse the manner of Dipping and to use less water yet we presume not to change the use and signification of it so then He that signally professeth to dye and rise again in baptism with Christ doth signally profess Saving Faith and Repentance But this do all that are baptized according to the Apostolical practice therefore c. Object about Nullity But it will be objected that this Argument goeth so high that it will prove that all mens baptism is a Nullity who do not profess Saving Faith and Repentance and so that they must be baptized again Answ. 1. This concerneth the Opponents to answer more than me 2. There are no such persons that I know of and therefore they are not to be re-baptized We distinguish between the secret Intention of Professing and the signal Interpretative Professing which the Church is bound to take as really intended And so I say that when Christ hath Instituted baptism for such a signification if any man seek and receive that baptism he doth thereby Interpretatively profess to seek and receive it as such to the use and Ends to which it was Instituted seeing then all the baptized do apparently as far as the Church can judge profess Saving Faith and Repentance even by receiving baptism there is no room for the conclusion of this Objection When they bring us forth one baptized Person who did not make such a signal Profession then we shall give them a further answer 3. If they did by word of mouth say that they believe with a saving Faith these words are but signs of their minds and whether counterfeit or not the Church cannot tell And the same may be said of the Baptismal Action and Reception 4. Therefore the Church must not take the external Sacrament for a Nullity every time a mans secret Intentions agree not with his signal Profession for then we should not know whether ever we baptize any one But when it is discovered after that he had other Intentions that which was wanting must be yet done viz. his sincere Intentions or saving faith and not that which was not wanting be done again viz. The external Administration and Reception of Baptism 5. It is confessed to be essential to the Sacrament that the Receiving of the washing by Water doth signifie the receiving of the souls washing by the Blood of Christ. Now suppose I can prove it of abundance of Parents that when they presented their Children to Baptism they did not understand that the water signified the blood of Christ or the washing our cleansing by it from sin and therefore had no such Intention in Baptism would the Opponents baptize all these again Let them answer this for themselves and they shall answer for us Or if the Case of Infant-baptism be quarrelled at let them suppose that it were the Person himself that had been so baptized though I am satisfied that its all one Argum. 4. If we must baptize none that profess not their Consent to enter themselves presently into the Covenant of Grace with God in Christ then we must baptize none that profess not saving faith But the former is true therefore c. Also if the very Reception of Baptism be a Profession of present entering into the Gospel-covenant with Christ then is it a Profession of saving faith But so it is therefore c. This Argument was implyed in the former but the Medium that I now use is the Identity of this covenanting and the profession of saving Faith supposing the Identity of Heart-covenanting and saving faith it self The Antecedent I think will be granted by many of the Papists and it is the common doctrine of the Protestants and therefore as to them I need not prove it I confess some of the Anabaptists and some few others do question whether Baptism be a Seal of the covenant of Grace But the quarrel is mostly if not only about the bare word Seal for they confess that in sense which we mean by sealing and particularly they confess that we do in Baptism enter into the covenant of God and that it is a professing and engaging sign on our part as well as an exhibiting notifying confirming sign on Gods part The consequence is thus proved He that doth ore tenus or by profession enter into the covenant of God doth profess saving faith therefore if we must not baptize them without a professed entering into covenant then nether must we baptize them without a profession of saving Faith Only the Antecedent requireth proof And if I prove either the Identity of profest covenanting and profest true believing or else the inseparableness of them I prove the Antecedent But I shall prove the Identity or the inseparability yea I doubt not of the first which is the most full proof And here we must first consider what the Covenant is we are to enter 1. And it is confest it is the covenant of Grace and that there is but one covenant of Grace This Mr. Blake aknowledgeth for all the mention of an outward covenant 2. It is also a confessed thing on all hands that it is God that is the first Author and Offerer of the covenant that it is he that redeemed us who made the promise or covenant of Grace upon the ground of Redemption and that this is frequently called a covenant in Scripture as it is a divine Law or constitution without respect to mans consent as Grotius hath proved in the preface to his Annotations on the Evangelists Much more out of doubt it is that it is called a covenant before man consenteth as it is a covenant offered and not yet mutually entered In the former sense the word is taken properly but in another sense and for another thing then in the later But in the later it is taken Tropically viz. Synecdochically it being but a covenant drawn up and consented to by God conditionally and offered to us
description of the Covenant pag. 154. Foedius Gratiae est quo deus per fidem in Christum nos pro justis reputat ac proinde pro faciis Foederis quod in remissione peccatorum gratuitò imputatione Justitiae Christi consistit agnoscit Georg. Solinius Method Theolog. makes no other of the Adult the subject of Baptism but the Professors of faith pag. 245. and that either verè credentes or hypocritae pag. 244. Et in Exeges Confes. August pag. 823. Si à Deo instituta sunt Sacramenta ut generalis illa promissio gratiae de Remissione pecoatorum viâ—ae aeternae singulis qui Sacramentis legitimè utuntur peculialiter obsignetur c. At sacramenta in hunc sinem instituta sunt Rom. 4 Gal. 3. 1 Pet. â— Melancthon's Judgement is the same as the rest as is apparent in his Common places and in Sohnius Thes. Theol. ex Corpore doctr Phil. Melancthonis c. 19. pag. 59.60 61 92. Trelcatius Instit. Theol l. 2. p. 198. Materia baptismum recipiens sunt omnes soli qui probabiliter in foedere censentur Censentur autem tam adulti qui principiis fidei initiati ad Ecclesiam accedentes fidem suam poenitentiam apud homines profitentur tam infantes c. Many passages before and after shew that he as others take to be foederatus or in foedere to be proper to the truly Regenerate and therefore they truly say qui probabiliter censentur esse in foedere Jo. Ger. Vossius Thes. de Sacram. Essicac Th. 37. Disp. 2. p. 3.28.339 mentioning the Answers of the Reformed Divines to an Objection divideth them into two parts as not agreed in the point The first is those qui dicere solent eum qui fidem habet praedicationi Evangelicae virtualiter quidem salutem habere quia dispositus est ad salutem consequendam instrumento instructus quo gratiam sâ—lutarem attingere consequi possit c. And thus they confess that Faith goeth before Baptism even this Justifying faith which they call the Instrument but they think that Justification and Sanctification follow Faith and Baptism The other sort are they who think that the Spirit by the Word before Baptism doth not only beget Faith but also offer to Faith and conferr the spiritual Grace of Regeneration So that both sorts agree of the Precedency of Faith in the Adult And Thes. 42. Contrae haec objicitur à quibusdam quòd Abraham Justitiam Fidei habuerit ante Circumcisionem Rom. 4.10 quod item Cornelius gratiam Sanctificationis habuerit ante Baptismum Act. 10.2 verùm neque nos negamus Gratiam Justificationis aut Sanctificationis ab Adultis ante Sacramenti usum Fide apprehendi sed dicimus ordinariè ante usum SacramentoruÌ„ tenuem tantùm Gratiae gustum haberi extraordinariè autem posse etiam tum auctiorem esse manifestiùsque sentiri So that ordinarily some true saving grace antecedeth Wollebius defineth Baptism thus Baptismus est primum novi Foederis Sacramentum in quo Electis in Dei familiam receptis externâ aquae aspersione peccatorum remissio regeneratio per sanguinem Christi Spiritum sanctum obsignatur And p. â—21 he makes it as others do one difference between the Word and Sacraments Quod Verbo ordinariè Fides excitetur Sacramentis confirmetur And therefore Grace which may be confirmed must be before expected Luther Tom. 2. Pag. 439. shews that Baptism containeth the Profession of saving Faith In Baptismo est Promissio Dei offerentis nostrum VOVERE nihil aliud est quà m ACCEPTARE CHRISTVM qui offertur nobis Felix sanè votum quod non promittit dare sed tantum bona accipere acceptis adhaerere Alstedius Definit Theolog. pag. 137. Baptismus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consideratus est sacramentum in quo homo electus tam certò abluitur sanguine Christi quà m certò corpus ipsius aquâ aspergitur Gal. 3.27 Baptizari in Nomen Patris Filii Spiritus sancti est baptizari in cultum sanctae Trinitatis quidem ità ut Pater Filius Spiritus sanctus nobis promittant Remissionem peccatorum vitam aeternam nos vicissins illis promittamus obsequium Et Distinct. c. 27. pag. 129. Vsus baptismi est commuâ—it vel singularis Ille est respectu hypocritarum credentium There is no third sort acknowledged to have right to Baptism Bishop Vshâ—r in his body of Divinity pag 415. The outward Elements are dispensed to all who make an outward profession of the Gospel for in Infants their being born in the Church is instead of an outward Profession because man is not able to distinguish Corn from Châ—ff but the inward grace of the Sacrament is not communicated to all but to those only who are heirs of those Promises whereof the Sacraments are Seals For without a man have his name in the Covenant the Seal set to it confirms nothing to him 1. It is here apparent that it is the outward Profession of no other then a saying faith that he meaneth As also he shews afterward 1. By opposing such Professors as Hypocrites when have not the thing professed to the Elect and Justified as here he doth the half to the Corn and 2. by his Description of the faith professed The Church doth not only baptize those that are grown and of years if any such being bred Pagans be brought up within the pale of the Church and testifie their competent understanding of Christianity and profess their faith in the Lord Jesus and Gods pretious Promises of Remission of sins by his blood and their earnest desire to be sâ—aled with Baptism for the strengthening of their souls in this faith Quest Doth the inward Grace alway accompany the outward sign Answ. No but only when the Profession of their faith is not outward only and counterfeit but sincere and hearty c. Here then is no third sort that are hearty professors of a lower kind of faith Amesius Bellarm. Enervat De Necessit Bapt Gen. 17. Ero Deus tuus Semâ—nis tuiâ— Filii corum qui participes sunt benedictionis Abrahae sunt Filii Dei etiaÌ„ quum primò nascuntur c. 1. Regenerationem esse partem promissionum singulari modo ad fidelium filios pertinere forderis ipsius formula manifestè declarat 2. Filii Christi incipimus esse per fidem ante baptismum 3. Baptizantur propriè homines quia pro filiis Dei habentur non ut incipiant esse Filii Alioquin ratio nulla esset quare filii infidelium non aequè baptizarentur ac filii fidelium Et cap. 3. pag. mihi 53. repugnat haec distinctio of a faith before Baptism which is but a disposition to Justification that is to Sanctification and a faith after Baptism whâ—ch is an essential part of Sanctification which was Bellarmin's distinction 1. Scripturae quae fidem justificantem antecedere
that believeth in him as a Teacher only for that is no more then to believe in him as in Moses or Elias 4. He that is sincerely a Disciple in heart must take Christ for his only Teacher in the way to everlasting life renouncing all other except as they stand under him and must be willing to be taught and guided by him in all things therefore he that is a professed Disciple must profess all this And that is to profess saving Faith For without saving faith no man can so believe in him or be heartily willing to be taught by him The lessons that they are to learn of him are self-denial and the contempt of this world and the love of one another and to be meek and lowly in heart that they may find rest to their souls Mat. 11.27 28. And these he proclaimeth when he inviteth men to his school But no ungodly man is willing to learn any of these and therefore unwilling are they to be his Disciples Argum. 8. We ought not to baptize those persons or their Infants as theirs who are visible members of the Kingdom of the Devil and his children or that do not so much as profess their forsaking of the child-hood and Kingdom of the devil But such are all that profess not a saving faith Ergo. The Major is proved thus If we must Baptize none but for present admission into the Kingdom of Christ then we must baptize none but those that profess a present departure from the Kingdom of the devil But the former is true therefore so is the latter The Antecedent is granted by those that I have to do with The reason of the consequence is evident in that all the world is divided into these two Kingdoms and they are so opposite that there is no passing into one but from the other The Minor of the first Argument I prove thus All they are visibly in the Kingdom of the Devil or not so much as by Profession removed out of it who Profess not a removal from that conditionâ— in which the wrath of God abideth on them and they are excluded by the Gospel from everlasting life But such are all that profess not a justifying faith Therefore I express the Major two waies disjunctively lest any should run to instances of men that are converted have not yet had a cal or opportunity to profess it If such are not visibly in the Kingdom of the Devil at least they are not visibly out of it The Major is proved in that it is the condition of the covenant of grace performed that differenceth the members of Christs Kingdom from Satans and so it is that condition profest to be performed that visibly differenceth them before men It is the promise of grace that bringeth them out of Satans Kingdom therefore it is only done invisibly to those that profess the performance of the condition Moreover to be out of Satans Kingdom visibly is to be visibly from under his Government but those that profess not saving faith are not visibly from under his Government Lastly to be visibly out of Satans Kingdom is to be visibly freed from his power as the Executioner of Gods eternal vengeance But so are none that profess not saving faith The Minor is proved from John 3.36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life and he that believeth not the Son or obeyeth not shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him where it is plain 1. That the unbelief spoken of is that which is opposed to saving faith even to that faith which hath here the promise of everlasting life 2. And that this leaves them visibly under the wrath of God So in Mar. 16.16 compared with Mat. 28.19 In the later Christ bids them make him Disciples and in the former he describeth those that are such and those that remain still in the Kingdom of Satan He that blieveth and is Baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned Here it is evident that the unbelief threatned is that which is contrary to and even the privation of the faith that Salvation is expresly promised to and that all that profess not this saving faâ—th are not so much as professedly escaped a state of Damnation and that this is the differencing Character of Christs Disciples to be baptized of which yet more afterward so Acts 26.18 It is the opening of mens eyes and the turning them from darkness to light and the power of Satan to God that they may receive Remission of sins c. which is the true state of them that are Christians in heart and the Profession of this that proveth them professed Christians and they that do not profess to be thus enlightned and converted do not profess to be brought from under the power of Satan for that is here made the terminus à quo So Col. 1.13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son Here the passing into the Kingdom of Christ is by passing from the Kingdom of darkness so that he is not Cordially in one that is Cordially in the other and consequently he is not by Profession in the one who is not by Profession past from the other He that professeth not such a faith as proveth men in Christs Kingdom professeth not so much as may prove him out of Satans And expresly it is said 1 John 3.8 10. He that committeth sin is of the Devil In this the Children of God are manifest the Children of the Devil he that doth not righteousness is not of God c. These passages will be further touched when we come to the Argument from the true visible Church Argum. 9. If it be the appointed use of all Christian Baptism to solemnize our marriage with Christ or to seal or confirm our union with him or ingraffing into him then must we baptize none that profess not justifying faith Because this is necessarily prerequisite and no others can protend to union marriage or ingraffing into Christ But the Antecedent is true Both Antecedent and consequence are evident in Gal. 3.27 28 29. For as many of you as have been baptized into Chrâ—st have put on Chrâ—st Ye are all one in Christ Jesus And if ye be Chrâ—sts then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs acccoding to promise Here 1 We see that it is not an accidental or separable thing for baptism to be our visible entrance into Christ our putting him on our admittance by solemnization into the state of Gods Children and heirs acording to promise For this is affirmed of all he baptized with true Christian Baptism If we be truely baptized we are baptized into Christ. If we we are baptized into Christ then are we Christ's and have put on Christ and are all one in Christ and are Abrahams seed and heirs according to promise If any object that the Apostle speaks this but of some of them even of the
those that are suspected of Heresie had said such words what should we make of them Doth all Passive or Objective power Natural Violent or Neutral come into act Doubtless no man that hath one thought of these things will say so if he do he must say that God can do no more then he doth nor any creature do more then it doth But if there be such a power or Capacity of a thing that shall not exist then it is sad to hear God charged with making all such powers or Capacities in vain He knows why he doth many things which he tells us not the reason of but here there is reason enough apparent to cause us to give God better words I ask't whether Preachers be not bound to endeavour the saving conversion of whole Nations He answereth I think they are to bring them if Heathen to a visible Profession and as many as they can to thorow-conversion Repl. 1. This is no answer to my question unless it import a concession of what was denyed Must men endeavour to convert a whole Nation or not 2. If we must endeavour to convert no more than we can convert then we must know the success before we endeavour which cannot be and must endeavour to convert no more then will be converted which is worse then false 3. I will not endeavour to perswade any man to Profess to be what he is not or to have what he hath not or to do what he doth not He next noteth it as a remarkable contradiction in adjecto that I say Vocation uneffectual is common to Pagans saying that Calling in Scripture Phrase is not a barâ— tender but accompanyed with a professed answer Repl. This is like much of the rest Let these Texts be judge Prov. 1.24 Because I have called and ye refused I have stretched out my hand and no man regarded but ye have set at nought all my counsel c. so Isa. 65.12 When I called ye did not answer when I spake ye did not hear c. so Isa. 50 2. 66.4 and Jer. 7.13 35.17 Mat. 22.3 5. He sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden c. But they made light of it c. I shall recite no more It hath not been thought a contradiction by Protestants or Papists that I know of till now to talk of uneffectual calling So much of Mat. 28.19 To what I said from Mar. 16.16 litle that needs a Reply is answered He saith If I will contend for an exact order then he must say that faith always preceds and never follows after Baptism Repl. In reason we must distinguish between a precedency of prescribed duty and of event and not seek to blind the Reader as you speak by confusion There is constantly this order in the prescribed duty that no man should seek Baptism but a true believer for himself and his seed and no man should baptize any but those that profess this true belief and their seed This is the fixed order of duty But what then will it follow that eventually faith never followeth baptism nor baptism never goeth before faith Yes when you can prove that man never sinneth by omitting his duty and that God never recovereth a sinner by his Grace You add And then he may preach in England to build up converts but not to convert Repl. True if there be none in England that neglected that faith which God commanded before nor received baptism in a case which is unmeet for it nor any that were baptized in infancy when they were uncapable of believing As to your frequent objection of the Nullity of such baptism I shall Null it anon in its proper place His concession in terms from 1 Pet. 3.21 he retracteth by an exposition of his words as spoken Rhetorically and thinks that ony one that ever read Rhetorick may know his sense when there is such a Wood of Tropes and Schems that such Novices may sooner be lost in them then hunt on t the sense of every Rhetorician The proper sense he takes to be an egregious peice of affected non-sense for then it were true that justifying faith is a promise Repl. It only follows that justifying faith is not only an Assent but the wills consent to the covenant of grace or that Christ be ours and we his and this is heart-covenanting and that the external verbal promising or covenanting with God is the profession of this faith And it is not my fault if I be put to tell you that as long as you are such a stranger to the nature of justifying faith as many such dark though confident passages in your books do import your Arguings will want salt if not sense I know this is like to displease But what remedy To the Text. Act. 8.37 he answereth pag. 176 that indeed he never met with any thing either in Scripture or Reason produced thâ—t carries with him so much as any color for it this excepted Repl. This is not my first Observation that confidence is not alwaies a sign of a true judgement and the seeing of no difficulties before us proves us not to know more than other men His particular answers are 1. Philip. may call for that de bene esse when the Eunuch was to be admitted which was not yet essential to his admittance Repl. 1. It s strange that when we are disputing what is of a necessity to a just admittance that we must turn to dispute of the Essentials of an admittance I never thought that any thing but admittance was essential to admittance but there are many things siâ—c quibus non licet 2. Philip is determining a question and giveth this in as the decision If thou believe with all thy heart thou mayest And to say that this is but de bene esse meaning that it includeth not the Negative otherwise thou mayest not is to make Philip to have deluded and not decided or resolved Use the like liberty in expounding all other Scripture and you 'l make it what you please The second Answer is that Dogmatical faith is truly a Divine faith Repl. But not the Christian Faith nor anywhere alone denominateth men Believers in Scripture I remember but one Text John 12.42 where it is called Believing on Christ and but few more where it is simply called Believing but none where such are called Believers Disciples or Christians or any thing that intimateth them admitted into the visible Church without the Profession of saving faith added to this Assent The rest which he here addeth we shall take in when we come purposely to speak of that subject I conclude That all examples of baptism in Scripture do mention only the administration of it to the Professors of saving faith and the precepts give us no other direction And I provoke Mr. Blake as far as is seemly for me to do to name one precept or example for baptizing any other and make it good if he can Argum. 17. is
the sense they are not agreed among themselves Some of them as is said would have Baptism only necessarily to admit Infants into the visible Church and place them under Government and ordinances and give them ex opere operato a certain preparatory grace Some of them will have it to imprint an indelible Character they know not what and to give them true Sanctification which they call justification by inherent grace Some of them affirm that as to Infant-Baptism the Council of Trent hath not defined whether it justifie or not and therefore it is not de fide And Accordingly some of them make true faith pre-requisite in the Parents and some of them make a certain congruous disposition Meritum de congruo to be pre-requisite but wherein that congruous Merit must consist they know not or are not yet agreed Commonly its thought to be in a fides informis or bare Assent Which Mr. Blake calls a dogmatical Faith conjunct with a reverent esteem of the Sacraments and a consent to become members of the Catholike Church and to be under their Government and use the Ordinances Or a consent in the Parent that the child do these And for the reformed Churches it is past all question by their constant practice that they require the Profession of a saving Christian Faith and take not up with any lower The Practice of the Church of England till the late change may be seen in the Common-prayer-Book wherein all that is forementioned is required The Judgement of the present Guides of our Churches as to the most is easie to be known by the Conclusions of the late Assembly at Westminster In the larger Catechism they say baptism is not to be administred to any that are out of the visible Church and so strangers to the Covenant of promise till they profess their Faith in Christ and obedience to him but Infants descending from Parents either both or but one of them professing faith in Christ obedience to him are in that respect within the covenant and to be baptized Here you may see whom they take to be of the visible Church and in that respect within the covenant 1. The words professing faith in Christ if they were alone do signifie a justifying faith profest For though to believe in Christ may sometime signifie a lower kind of Faith yet analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato 2. But that there may be no doubt of their meaning they add the necessity also of a profession of Obedience to Christ to shew that it is the working faith which must be profest And it is not only a Promise of Obedience for some distant futurity but the Profession of it which they make necessary And I conceive that he that professeth faith in Christ and obedience to him professeth that which will prove saving if he have but what he professeth The same they say in their confesâ—ion of Faith Cap 28. And again in the shorter Catechism Profession of Faith in Christ and obedience to him is the thing required In the Directory also they tell us that Baptism is a seal of the Covenant of Grace of our ingraffing into Christ and of our Vnion with him of remission of sin Regeneration Adoption and Eternal Life that the water in Baptism representeth and signifieth both the blood of Christ which taketh away all guilt of sin original and actual and the sanctifying vertue of the spirit of Christ against the dominion of sin and corruption of our sinful nature That baptizing or sprinkling and washing with water signifieth the cleansing from sin c. That the promise is made to believers and their seed c. And they mean no doubt the promise of the foresaid special mercies for even Mr. Blake himself doth once deny any promise of baptism to be made to the Infants that he pleadeth for And the promise of Justification Adoption c. is made to no believers but those that have justifying faith otherwise than as it is barely offered and so it is to Infidels also They add also in the same place that All who are bapâ—ized in the name of Christ do renounce and by their baptism are bound to fight against the Devil the World and the flesh All this is further manifest in our daily administration of Baptism I never heard any man baptize an Infant but upon the Parents or Susceptors or Offerers Profession of a justifying faith Nor do I believe that Mr. Blake himself doth baptize any otherwise though he dispute against this and for another Baptism The grounds of my conjecture are 1. Because I suppose he is loth to be so singular as to forsake the course of the Church in all ages And therefore I conjecture that he requireth them to profess that they believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and that they renounce the world the Flesh and the Devil 2. Because he so often professeth that he taketh the baptized to be in covenant with God and that this covenant is by them entered in baptism he saith that he knoweth but of one Covenant and that is the covenant of saving grace and that they are presently obliged debetur quovis tempore and therefore it is not only for a distant futurity that they engage themselves And if this be so it is past doubt that they profess a saving faith For the Gospel hath two parts 1. the Narrative or Historie of Christs person and sufferings resurrection c. 2. and the offer of Christ and life to sinners Accordingly Faith hath two parts 1. the Assent to the History or to the truth of the Christian Doctrine and this Mr. Blake maintaineth to be necessary and 2. Consent to the offer And this is called the Receiving of Christ And this is our Internal covenanting which Mr. Blake confesseth necessary For the covenanting of the Heart is this very consent with a resolution for future duty and the covenanting of the mouth is the Expression or Profession of this Consent with a promise of the necessary consequent duty So that though Mr Blake do say pag. 171. that â—ustifying Faith is with him the thing promised and do thrust from him the imputation of such an egregious piece of affâ—cted non-sense as to say that justifying faith is a promise Yet it is not only all the sense that I have of the nature of justifying faith that iâ— is an Assent to the Truth of the Gospel with a consent to the offer or heart-heart-promise to be Christs but it must also be his own sense though disaffected or else he must palpably contradict himself There being no other internal entering or accepting the Covenant or Offer of Grace but by that consent and heart promise 3. And I must also conjecture this because we even now found Mr. Blake denying that ever he denied the necessity of the Profession of a saving faith to baptism But if in my conjectures I be mistaken in Mr. Blakes practice I must say
a distance about a matter of open fact I must still say that I hoped Dr. Ward would not have found a Second to undertake that Cause But this doth not intimate either that I never read that any was of his minde before or that I expected not that any should be afterward It s one thing to be of that Opinion and another thing as his Second to undertake it But I will now say more than that which you wonder at I must profess that I do not know of any one Protestant Divine reputed Orthodox of that Judgement before Dr. Ward and you though some Papists and Arminians I knew of that minde and since I finde Sir Hen. Vane maintain it and one John Timson in his Defence of M. Humphrey and now newly M. Humphrey in his second Vindication of Free Admission Let all Readers now come and wonder at your wondering and mine or at least the vast disagreement of our Judgements in such a point of fact All that ever open the books of Protestants come and judge betwixt Mr. Blake and me Dr. Ward and he do maitain That a certain kinde of faith which is short of Justifying faith giveth title to Baptism even before God I say that only true Justifying faith is the condition of our Title before God as given by him and warranting our claim but that the bare profession of that Justifying faith but of no lower doth make us such whom the Minister must give the Sacraments to if we claim them and so by it we have a Right to them before the Church and so far before God as he is the approver of the Churches act Mr. Blake saith almost every one of our late Writers appear for him I say I remember none of the Reformed Divines for them Nor do I finde that Mr. Blake himself hath produced any to that end but by meer abusing them Certain I am that the common doctrine of Reformed Divines is that sound believers are members of the mystical Church and that professors of that belief are members of the visible Church to whom we must give Sacraments But as for your third sort who believe with another kinde of faith or profess so to do it is not their use to take these as members of either or such as have right to Sacraments One more Objection I finde much stood upon which I had almost forgot viz The Sacraments are appointed for the visible Church therefore all that are of the visible Church have Right to them Answ. the word appointed is ambiguous If it mean only that Ministers are appointed to deliver it to men upon an outward Profession and Claim this we still grant But if the meaning be that Hypocritical or Unregenerate Professors have any Moral Donation or Promise of them or any command to claim and receive them in their present state this is but a bare affirming of the thing in question and so their Consequent is the same with the Antecedent What Mr. Galespie and Mr. Rutherford and many other Divines have said against it you have seen before as also by what Scripture-Evidence it is destroyed Ob. But t is said of the Jews that to them pertained the Adoption and the Glory and the Covenants and the giving of the Law and the Service of God and the Promises Rom. 9.4 Answ. 1. Yet will it not follow that all these pertain to all the Visible Church and therefore not to the Church as Visible The Glory that is the Ark and other signs of some Glorious Presence and the giving of the Law here mentioned with other Priviledges expressed in the next words were proper to the Jews 2. The Jewish Nation contained some that were truly sanctified and some that were not To the later sort was given the Law Covenants Promises c. providentially and by way of Offer God so ordered it that among them these excellent mercies should abide and to them they should be offered and if they had heartily accepted them they might have had a proper Title to the Benefits of the Covenant it self And it fell out that the seals were actually applied to them upon their pretended acceptance of the offer and upon their claim But to the former belonged the Covenants and Promises as the instruments of Gods Donation whereby he conveyed to them actuall Right to the Benefits But so it did not to the latter unless we speak of some particular promise made to this or that indiviall person or some temporal promises to the Jews as Jews and not as a Visible Church Yet may it well be said that to the Jews in general the Covenants Promises c. belonged not only because the Regenerate were Jews and the whole Nation was denominated from the better part sometime but also which is Pauls sence in that Text because it is not the foresaid proper Right that is here spoken of but the actual sending of this Light among them and the tendering of it to them and continuing it with them together with the success of it so far as that some were sanctified by it and others seemingly consented to it And thus we may say of England now in the general that it enjoyeth the Gospel and Sacraments c. in that they are among us and all men that are truly willing may have a saving title to them and the rest that pretend to be willing and are not do actually partake of the External Ordinance though to their own condemnation through their own default But this is no affirming that the unregenerate have a proper Title given them which may warrant their claim in that estate I mean to the Sacraments which are special Ordinances The Reverend Vindicator of Free Admission layeth down 13 Reasons to prove that the Covenant in the general Grace and external Administration of the Ordinances belongs to the whole Church as Visible and to the several members alike To which I say 1. that it belongs to them is too large a word without distinction to use in a profitable discourse I have elsewhere shewed that Covenant and Seals do belong to them in some sence and in other not and how far such are in Covenant 2. Note on the by that if this were granted it s nothing to Mr. Blake's main cause against me that a Faith short of justifying gives Right For no man was ever a member for a Faith short of justifying but only for a saving faith or the profession of a saving faith 3. Note that the stress of the Controversie is not Whether it belong to them at all but whether as he affirmeth to all alike Enough is said before for the solving of his Arguments More particularly To the first Pag. 6. How the whole Nation of the Jews were in Covenant is before declared more than which is yet unproved and also how little this makes for his End To the Second We easily grant that the Gentiles are graffed into the same Olive and are as much in the Covenant of Grace
while he was destitute of the faith which by his action was professed Receiving the Sacrament as a Sacrament is an actual profession oâ— faith And you can never prove that Christ commanded Juda to lye by professing the faith which he had not but only that he commanded him at once to Believe and thus profess it He that will have men compelled to come in to the Church intendeth that they must bring a wedding garment or else they shall hear how camest thou hither You apprehend John Timpsons words to be apposite which imply a contradiction or touch not the point If the right Object be really believed even that which is the full Object of saving faith that very belief is saving and proveth the holiness of the person To the Twelfth I answer General and special Grace I resolvedly maintain But when will you prove that it is a part of General Grace to have a proper Title given by God to the Sacraments which seal up the pardon of sin actually where there is such Title To have the universal conditional promise or covenant ex parte Dei enacted and promulgate and offered the world with many incitements to entertain it is General Grace But so is not either our actual heart-covenanting the Remission of our sin nor such a proper Title to the sign of both When you tell us of the Worlds Potential and the visible Churches actual Interest in General Grace you give us pardon the truth a meer sound of words that signifie nothing or nothing to purpose You cannot call it General Grace Objectively as if the Saints had a particular Objective Grace the rest a General For Generals exist not but in the individuals It is therefore the General conditional promise or gift which you must mean by General Grace This is to the world without indeed but an offer But is it any more to any of the unbelievers or unregenerate within what can be the meaning of an actual Interest in a conditional promise which all the hearers have not and yet is short of the true actual Interest of them that perform the condition I feel no substance in this notion nor see any light in it I confess there is a certain possession that one such man may have more then others but as that is nothing to proper Title so it is not the thing that Sacraments are to seal I have not Mr. Hudsons book now by me but your solution by the two sives had need of some sifting It s one thing to ask what is the end of Sacraments quoad intentionem praecepti and another thing to tell what eventually they produce I do not believe that the sive that brings men into a state of Grace is in the hands of God only so as if he used not Ministers thereto Ministers are said in Scripture to convert and heal and deliver and save men To your 13th and 14th and last I answer That we easily confess that the covenant under the new Testament is better than the old but this makes nothing for you nor do you prove that it doth the force of the first section of your book as it may be the matter of an Objection I have answered before As to your Authorities I say 1. Mr. Vines saith nothing which proveth any approbation of your opinion whether Mr. Burgess do I leave to himself for I know not certainly All that I know of since Dr. Ward is Mr. Blake Mr. Humphrey and John Timpson and John Timpson Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Blake Your 3d and 4th Sections need no more answer I think than what is already given You needed not these pillars to support that point which is the design of your Treatise To these I find you add another the greatest of all pag. 611. which you say sinks deep into you but if reason will do it I will pluck it up by the roots partly by desiring you to peruse what I have twice or thrice before answered to it and partly by adding as followeth That 1. If a man by mistaken doubtings shall keep himself away from a Sacrament that doth not destroy his Title to it or the Grace signified nor is it any ones fault but his own I therefore deny your Minor It is not this doctrine that cuts off doubting Christians from the Sacrament but themselves that do culpably withdraw To your Prosyllogism I deny the Major that doctrine which concludes it sin in the doubtful Christian to Receive doth not cut him off For it concludeth it not his sin to Receive in it self but to Receive doubtingly so that it is not Receiving but Doubting that is properly his sin and withall we say that it is his Duty to Receive and his greater Sin not to Receive than to Receive And though an erring Conscience doth alwaies ensnare and so create a necessity of sinning which way soever we go till it be rectified yet it s a greater sin to trespass against a plain precept than against an erring Conscience in many cases But the main stress lyeth on your proof which is from Rom. 14.23 Whatsoever is not of faith is sin But I could wish you would consider it better before you press home that Text to the same sence against all other duties as you do against this lest you leave God but little service from the Church 1. It is one thing to doubt about indifferent matters such as Paul speaks of as eating c. For there he is condemned if he eat because he is sure it is lawful to forbear but not sure that it is lawful to eat But press not this upon us in case of necessary duty If God command me to pray praise or communicate my doubt will not justifie my forbearance and though it entangle me in sin it cannot disoblige me from duty but I shall sin more if I forbear You say If it be sin for the unregenerate to Receive then cannot the doubting Christian be perswaded and consequently sinneth Ans. True but that 's not long of the doctrine but of his error and it is the case of all practical errors which will not therefore justifie you in blaming the doctrine it s the unavoidable effect of an erring Conscience And again I say he sinneth more in forbearing Whereas you conclude this Argument to be convincing I have told you before why it convinceth not me but to your selves I would ask whether it do not also convince you that your own doctrine is as unsufferable For I am past doubt that not only most Christians but even most doubting Christians have more knowledge that they have true justifying faith than the rest of the world have that they have true Dogmatical faith Though the wicked doubt less because they believe and regard it less yet indeed they have not only far more cause to doubt of the truth of their Dogmatical faith but have less true knowledge of it At least many of them it s thus with when so many true Christians do as much
for our consent 3. It is this same Covenant that is offered to us and not another that we are called to consent to or enter in And we cannot be truly said to enter into the covenant of God if we make a new one of our own and lay by his for that 's none of the Covenant of God he never offered it nor will he ever enter it 4. It is confessed by all that there is an internal covenanting with God by the heart and an External covenanting or engaging our selves by words or other outward signs and that this last is the Profession of the former 5. And it is confessed by all the world that internal Covenanting is an Act of the Will and never of the understanding only or chiefly 6. And this Act of the Will is commonly by the custom of Nations called consent so that consenting to Gods offered Covenant is the very formal Act or our Internal covenanting with him and professing this consent is the Signal or External Covenanting with him 7. We are I hope agreed what the Covenant of Grace is as offered on Gods part or else its great pity viz. that on the Title of Creation first and Redemption after we being absolutely his own it is offered to us that God will be our God our chief Good and Reconciled Father in Christ that Christ will be our Saviour by Propitiation Teaching and Ruling us even from the guilt and filth or power of sin that the Holy Ghost will be our indwelling Sanctifier if we heartily or sincerely accept the Gift and Offer That God will consent to be our God Christ to be our Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost to be our indwelling Sanctifier if we will but consent This is no doubt the Gift or Covenant as offered These things being premised I come to prove not only the inseparability which is enough to my purpose but even the Identity of Heart-covenanting and saving faith and of signal external covenanting and the Profession of saving faith To enter the Covenant of God unfeignedly in heart is to accept God for my God Jesus Christ for my Saviour and the Holy Ghost for my Sanctifier upon the Gospel offer To believe savingly is to accept of God for my God Jesus Christ for my Saviour and the Holy Ghost for my sanctifier upon the Gospel offer therefore to enter the Covenant of God heartily and to believe savingly are the same Moreover to Covenant with God Externally is to profess our Consent that God be our God Christ our Saviour and the Holy Ghost our Sanctifier on the Gospel offer To profess saving faith is to profess the same consent therefore external entering into the Covenant and profession of saving faith are the same thing That this is the only true Covenant-entrance with God is proved thus It is only this Covenant of Grace that God calleth us to consent to and offereth himself to enter with us therefore it is only this covenant of Grace whose acceptance or consent to it is our entrance into the Covenant of God There can be no covenanting in the present sense but by two parties But God doth not offer himself to us in any other Covenant but this nor offer his consent to any other And it s confessed that God is the leading Party prescribing to man and imposing on him the terms of the Covenant or Conditions which he must perform There is no possibility therefore of our entering into Gods covenant when it is none of his Covenant or when it is against his Will or without his consent And that this is the nature of saving faith is manifest For 1. It is not a meer act of the Intellect Though Assent be the Initial Act from which it hath oft its name yet it is not the whole nor the perfecting Act Our Divines most commonly consent except Camero and some few more that faith is in the Will as well as the Understanding And its first Act in the Will must needs be velle Christum oblatum or a consent to the Gospel-offer of God Christ and the Holy Ghost or an Acceptance of the Redeeming Trinity in the Relation as they are offered to to be ours in the Gospel After which followeth Affiance as Assent precedes it Our Assembly of Divines in their Catechisms say That Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving Grace whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation as he is offered to us in the Gospel Or as elswhere to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the Gospel And the Wills receiving is by Accepting or Consenting Dr. Preston hath at large shewed in many of his writings as I have elswhere shewed that Faith and Heart-covenanting with Christ is all one The Scripture calleth Saving faith A receiving Christ Jesus the Lord John 1.12 Col. 2.5 6 This therefore with almost all Protestant Writers is past controversie But if any will yet be stiff in it that Faith is only in the Intellect upon that common poor reason that one Grace cannot be in two faculties it may suffice to them that I prove the Inseparability of saving faith and sincere Heart-covenanting and so of the profession of each though I had not proved the Identity And these same men do most earnestly plead for the Inseparability themselves maintaining at large that Assent which only they call Faith if true is Inseparable from true consent which is the Heart-covenanting Of which you may see Dr. Downame in his Treatise of Justification and in his Appendix against Mr. Pemble at large But here we are quite off with the Papists for they stifly maintain that Faith is only the Understandings Assent only the Schoolmen and others of them confess that it is a willing Assent but it is one thing to will the Assent and another thing to will or Accept the Good that is contained in the promise which we Assent to This last is the thing in Question And they tell us that this is not Faith but Love To which Maccovius and Chamier answer them that Faith and Love to Christ are all one though Faith and Love to a distinct object be not so 2. Hereupon we proceed to a further difference which is that the Papists say that Faith may be separated from Love that Faith without Love doth not Justifie but only that Faith which is informed by Love How far this supposed great disagreement is meerly Verball or Reall I leave to the judicious Reader to judge when he hath considered that what we call Faith simply they call Fides formata Charitate That the Act of Faith which is in the Will the Papists call by the name of Love and not of Faith yet both agree de re ipsa that this is the thing which is necessary to Justification and we confess as well as they that meer Assent of some sort is separable from Love But then the mischief is that the Papists by false wording or naming these Graces are carried to the misinterpreting of
many Scriptures if not to many erroneous Doctrines also And when they read of Faith simply they commonly take it for meer Assent And so they are led into error in the present controversie For when they find that he that Believeth must be Baptized they conclude presently with Bellarmine that sides non charitas facit Christianum he that assenteth is a Believer therefore may be baptized But our Divines have so frequently and so voluminously confuted this conceit and proved against them that faith is in the Will as well as the understanding and that to Believe in signifieth to Accept or rest upon or have Affiance in and that Faith and Love are inseparable yea true and through Assent that I shall not needlesly stand to do again a work so oft and fully done And themselves confess that when Faith is mentioned as Justifying it includeth the act of the Will which they call Charity And sure we have oft proved against them that this is the faith that is meant in Gods Covenant and in our Baptismal Profession and Covenant with him and in the Creed In a word that Faith which is meant by God in the Covenant offered must be meant by us in our profession of Accepting this offer But it is a true saving Faith which hath a promise of Remission which is meant by God in the Covenant offered therefore this must be meant by us c. The Major is clear because else we do but Equivocate with God and we do not Accept the same thing that he offereth The Minor is clear in that the Covenant of Grace is but one and that one Covenant offereth Christ and Life to all that will accept him so that the Acceptance puts us into a participation of Christ and Life The Covenant offereth pardon of sin to all that Believe or Receive Christ therefore it is a saving faith that it means because it annexeth saving special Benefits To these I add another Argument which is this The hearty Acceptance of the Gift is the first and principal part of our Heart-covenanting with God The hearty Acceptance of that same Gift is saving faith therefore the first and principal part of our Heart-covenanting with God is the same thing as saving Faith The like I say of the Professions of each Or thus Our Heart-covenanting is the principal condition of the Promise or Gods part of the Covenant Our saving Faith is the principal condition of the Promise Therefore our Heart-covenanting and our saving faith are the same The Major I prove by the Medium of the fore-going Argument Our hearty Acceptance of the Gift is the Principal condition of the Promise But this hearty Acceptance of the Gift is the first and principal part of our Heart-covenanting therefore our Heart-covenanting is the principal condition of the Promise or the first and chief part of that covenating at least The Major is proved 1. In that it is a free Gift And our Divines against the Doctrine of Justification by Works or Merit have fully proved that it s so free that Acceptance is the condition of our Interest 2. And the free Offers of the Gospel fully confirm it Isa. 55 1 2.3 Rev. 22.17 c. The main point that is necessary for me to insist on is the proof of the Minor which yet is so plain from what is said and the very nature of the Gospel offer that one would think it should need no more to be said to it But that I perceive some few do misapprehend the nature of our covenanting with God as if it were only an Agreement or Covenant to do somewhat for the future that God may do somewhat for us for the future And this gross mistake gross indeed in the very point of the Gospel promise which is our only tenure of our Title to Life doth animate abundance of dark confused quarrelsom contradictions and oppositions which I have had on this point It is a matter of very sad consideration that any Preacher of the Gospel had need to be perswaded that the first and great part of the Covenant of Grace offered by God and accepted by us doth consist in present Giving and Receiving not only in mutual Promises for hereafter The Gospel is a most free Deed of Gift some of its benefits it actually giveth on condition of meer Acceptance to be presently possest and some of them on condition too but in a waiting obediential way to be hereafter possest In respect to the presently given benefiâ—s the Gospel is a Deed of Gift presently entitling us to them and our present acceptance is the condition But in regard of the future Benefits the Gospel is also a Deed of Gift but giveth not present Title or at least not so full and therefore requireth future conditions as it gives future Benefits At the present in the New Covenant God giveth himself to be our God Christ to be our Saviour Head and Husband the Holy Ghost to be our Sanctifier and also the present actual pardon of our sins the Justification of our Persons the Adoption of Sons the indwelling Spirit a Right to a beneficial use of the Creature and a Right to the Inheritance of Everlasting life so far that if we should die that hour we should be saved All these God offered us at the present on condition of our Accptance or consent This consent is our Heart-covenanting so that this first and great part of the Covenant consisteth but in the present Giving and taking of all these Benefits which in a word the Apostle expresseth 1 John 5.11 12 by the words Christ and eternal Life God hath given us eternal life and this life is in his Son He that hath the Son hath life and he that hath not the Son hath not life The remaining part of the Benefits are our future helps of Grace Pardons Protections final Absolution at Judgement and eternal Glory All these we have a right to at our first Justification but it is a right to be continued only on some future conditions that is on the condition of our continuance in the Faith which we begun and of our renewed faith and Repentance and sincere Gospel-Obedience which is to be performed in a receiving way Now its true that as to these future conditions we do not actually perform them in our covenating but promise them as God doth not then actually give us the very Blessings now mentioned but promise them But as to all the first expressed great Benefits as God did before our Consents but promise and offer them but in our covenanting or consent doth actually give them so we do by our covenanting in heart which is nothing but our consenting or accepting perform the conditions of Gods promise and thus our very covenanting with God is the same thing as our fulfiling the conditions of the Covenant that is of Gods conditional Deed of Gift which before gave us Christ and Life if we would accept them and now giveth them
Scripture so connexed to salvation I know no Regenerate ones but the justified or those that profess to have a justifying faith Nor hath he proved any more Argum. 11. All that are meet subjects for Baptism are after their Baptism without any further inward qualification at least without another species of faith meet subjects for the Lords Supper having natural capacity by age But no one that professeth only a faith short of justifying is meet to receive the Lords Supper therefore no such a one is a meet subject for Baptism Or thus Those at age whom we may baptize we may also admit to the Lords Supper without any other species of faith But the Professors of a meer common faith short of justifying we may not admit to the Lords Supper Ergo c. The duty of a particular examination before the Lords Supper is nothing to our purpose because 1. that makes a man fitter than he was but the want of it is not in the cognizance of the Minister alwaies nor will not justifie our refusal of a godly man excepting some apparent gross evils 2. And it is the necessity of another faith and state that we are enquiring after which will not be proved by the necessity of an actual examination or excitation of our present grace The Major Mr. Blake will easily grant me and if any other deny it I prove it thus 1. It is the same Covenant that both Sacraments Seal one for initiation the other for confirmation and growth in grace therefore the same faith that qualifieth for the one doth sufficiently qualifie for the other For the same covenant hath the some condition 2. They are the same heresies that are conferred in baptism and the Lords Supper to the worthy Receiver Therefore the same qualification for kind is necessary for the reception The Antecedent is commonly granted Baptism uniteth to Christ and giveth us himself first and with himself the pardon of all past sins c. The Lords Supper by confirmation giveth us the same things It is the giving of Christ himself who faith by his Minister take eat drâ—nk offering himself to us under the signs and commanding us to take himself by faith as we take the signs by the outward parts He giveth us the pardon of sin sealed as procured by his body broken and blood shed 3. A member of Christs Church against whom no Accusation must be brought from some contradiction of his first profession must be admitted to the Lords Supper but the new baptized may be ordinarily such at age therefore if he can but say I am a baptized person he hath a sufficient principal title to Baptism coram ecclesia I mean such as we must admit though some actual preparation be necessary unless he be proved to have disabled his claim on that account either by nulling and reversing that profession or by giving just cause of questioning it 4. The Church hath ever from the Apostles daies till now without question admitted the new baptized at age to the Lords Supper without requiring any new species of faith to entitle them to it I take the Major therefore as past denial All the controversie between Mr. Blake and me is like to be about the Minor whether the profession of his common faith short of justifying make people fit for or capable of the Lords supper 1. No man should be admitted to the signal profession of Receiving Christ as he is offered who will not orally profess to receive him as he is offered But all that are admitted to the Lords supper are admitted to the signal profession of receiving Christ as he is offered Therefore no man that will not orally so profess to receive Christ should be admitted to the Lords Supper The Major is plain because 1. Else we cannot know who is fit if he will not make profession of it 2. His refusal shews that he either understandeth not what he doth in the Sacrament or is wilfully uncapable by infidelity or impenitency 3. The Minor is evident in the nature of the Sacrament The offer of the bread and wine with the command Tade eat drink is signally the oâ—fer of the Lord Jesus himself with a command to take him He that puâ—s forth his hand to take the bread professeth thereby to Accept of Christ as offered If it be said that Mr. Blakes professor of a lower sort of faith doth profess to take Christ as offered I say No This proposition I here suppose as evident in it self that no man but the sound Believer doth take Christ as offered no not as Christ. He is offered as a Saviour from the Guilt and Reign of sin and so Mr. Blakes professor doth not so much as profess to accept him For I hope we are agreed that so to accept him heartily is saving faith 2. No man should be admitted to receive a sealed pardon of sin or have it delivered to him that doth not profess that faith which is of necessity to make him capable of a sealed pardon but he that only professeth a faith short of justifying professeth not that faith which is of necessity to make him capable of a sealed pardon Therefore he is not to be admitted to the Lords supper It is a present sealed pardon that they profess there to receive by the very actual receiving God presently offereth and they presently profess to accept it signally and therefore must do so verbally 3. No man is to be admitted to the Lords supper that professeth not true Repentance for sin But Mr. Blake's Professor doth not so for that is inseparable from saving faith Therefore Mr. Blake must deny the Major or say nothing that I can imagine but what is to no purpose And if he do deny it 1. I would desire him once to give us a just Description of that Repentance short of saving which he will be satisfied with the Profession of in his Communicants 2. I must confess as much as I am against separation I never intend to have communion with Mr. Blakes Congregation if they profess not saving Repentance and faith And if he exact not such a Profession I say still he makes soul work in the Church And when such soul work shall be voluntarily maintained and the Word of God abused for the defilement of the Church and Ordinances of God it is a greater scandal to the weak and to the Schismaticks and a greater reproach to the Church and sadder case to considerate men than the too common pollutions of others which are meerly through negligence but not justified and defended And if Mr. Blake be angry at my speaking these things I cannot help it I am bound to tell him of it as a faithful Brother that I doubt not but God is angry at his Doctrine and the great wrong that he doth the Church of God while he is so angry at his Brother for resisting it For my part I would not have done his work no nor justified it as some of his
inquit ex toto corde licet quasi non baptizaturus nisi id ille porfiteretur ipseque Charitatis saltem judicio ita credere credat Read the rest And pag. 66. Ad hos sines Sacrationem Remissionem peccatorum vel alterutrum horum consequendos Baptisma mihi minimè institutum videtur quum in institutione ipsa eis primariò administrandum ordinetur qui ex praedicatione Evangelii side in Christum imbuti disciplinam Christianam jam amplexifuerunt Mar. 16.15 16. Matth. 28.18 At hi sanati ex parte reatu omni exoluti ad Baptismum suscipiendum accedebaent aut ejusmo ii saltem esse praesumebantur antequam ad Baptismum admitterentur Quin Johannis baptismae ejusdem fuisse efficaciae cum illo qui ab Apostolis ex Christi instituto administrabatur adversus Pontificios nostri omnes tuentur At in Joannis Baptismo praevia exigebatur poenitentia quam peccatorum venia necessariò inseparabiliter consequitur See his Defens of this against Dr. Ward 's Answ. pag. 67 68. And as to the pretended different use to Infants pag. 69. 1. Principali effecto imò principalibus effectis caruisse baptismum c. 2. Si quem in parvulis alium effectum statuere libuerit quà m in adultis obtineat id mirum valdè S.S. nusquam insinuâsse nec de eo certi quicquam constare poterit quo fides nostra nitatur donec Verbulo salâ—em Divino aliquo illud nobis innotescat Steph. Tzegedinus Loc. Commun de Sacram. Tab. 2. saith Sacramenta non conferre gratiam quia sancti priùs Justificati receptique in gratiam quà m initiati sint Sacramentis Lamb. Danaeus Resp. ad Tom. 2. Bellarm. de Sacram. pag. 167. Bellarminus putat absurdè hic oportuisse Baptismum praecedere Fidem non autem Fidem Baptismum Promissio enim praecedit sigillum ergo est mediatum subsequent fidem verbum Sacramenti utroque posterius He speaks of Justifying faith Leg. pag. 78. Many such passages he hath too long to be cited Ravanellus Biblioth de Baptism pag. 184. In nomine vel in nomen Patris Filii Spiritus sancti baptizari dicimur quia per baptismum S.S. Trinitas nor in gratiam recipere testificatur nos vicissim spondemus ac profitemur ei nos totos dicare consecrare Et col 2. Adulti ad baptismum admittendi sunt modò fidem prositeantur Act. 2.41 8.12 13 37 38. 9 18 6 11 17. 16 15 14 33 32. peccata publicè confiteantur se agnoscentes ex gratuita remissione salutem consequi Mat. 3.6 Marc. 1.5 Et de Sacram. pag. 512. Col. 2. Terminus vel finis Sacramenti est vel Cui nempe soli foederati Inter foederatos autem Dei censentur omnes illi qui sunt in external Ecclesiae communione prositentur se in Christum credere vero cum inter hoc quidam possint esse hypocritae impii ideo Sacramenta in Ecclesia communia sunt piis impiis Ita tamen ut impii pro Piis probabiliter habeantur Thus commonly speak Protestants on this Subject The Church of Scotland in their Heads of Church Policy recited by Spotswood in his History l. 6. pag. 289. thus begin 1. The Church of God is sometime largely taken for all them that profess the Evangel of Jesus Christ and also it is a company not only of the Godly but also Hypocrites professing outwardly one true Religion 2. At other times it is taken for the Elect only and the Godly So that here are none acknowledged Church-members but those only that are truly Godly and Elect or seem to be so and are Hypocrites if they be not so The Helvetian Confession as in the Harmony translated p. 287. of Bapt. faith To be baptized in the name of Christ is to be enrolled entered and received into the Covenant and Family and so into the Inheritance of the sons of God and called the sons of God and purged also from the filthiness of sins and to be indued with the manifold Grace of God for to lead a new and innocent life We therefore by being baptized do confess our faith and are bound to give unto God obedience mortification of the flesh and newness of life yea and we are listed souldiers for the warfare of Christ that all our life long we should fight against the World Satan and our own flesh And none but sound believers truly consent to this and therefore none but Professors of sound belief do profess consent to it I shall pass over the Confessions of other Churches containing the same doctrine The Professors of the Protestant University of Saumors in France in their excellent Thes. Vol. 3. are full on the point Pag. 58. Thes. 27. Obsignat autem illam certè ut quia nos profitentur habere per fidem communionem cum Morte Resurrectione Christi fructum utriusque ad nos pertinere testificetur Fructus autem ille primùm in Justificatione situs est At quemadmodum professio illa habet in se inclusam promissionem de per severantiâ in eâ fide sic obsignatio pariter habet stipul itionem quandam tacitam illius perseverantiae Thes. 29. pag. 59. Sacramenta verò non conferuntur nisi itâ— qui vel fidem habent vel saltem eum prae se ferunt adeò ut nullis certis argumentis compertam esse pâ—ssit eam esse ementitam Pag. 50. Thes. 7. Est tamen inter ea notabile discrimen quod penè in omnium sensus incurrit scilicet ut jam alibi animadvertimus sacramenta quidem nemini tribuuntur nisi qui censeatur implevisse conditionem quam Deus ab hominibus foedere suo exigit This is the doctrine that Mr. Blake will not be entreated to understand viz. that the very Covenanting on our parts is the first and great condition imposed and required in the Covenant or promise of God and so when we sincerely covenant we perform the condition of his Promise Heart-covenanting is by consenting and Consent joyned to Assent is Justifing faith At Conditionis impletio dupliciter consideraâ—ur nimirum vel in iis momentis quibus praestatur pâ—imùm vel in eo tempore quo conservatur perseverat Conditi nis autem Evangelicae ea natura est ut praestari nequeat quin illico introducat eum à quo praestatur in Christi coÌ„munionem societatem Ecclesiae atque adeò quin ei acquirat adoptionem per quam numeratur in Dei filiis Joan 4.11 Cum vero conservatur atque persistit nihil aliud facit nisi quòd easdem illas praerogativas retinet ne iis excidamus Baptismus autem in eum finem comparatus est ut ea omnia obsignet quatenus communicantur primùm Coena verò ut retineantur Thes. â— Sunt enim duo certè genera hominum quae ad participationem foederis Evangelici à Deo admittuntur
Title No more therefore can be required of me but this Argument If such Infants can shew no good Title to such Baptism nor any for them then have they no Right to it But they can shew no good Title Ergo c. The Major is undeniable for Titulus est fundamentum Juris For the Minor I argue thus If they can shew any good Title it is either some grant of God written in his word or seeme not written But neither written nor not written therefore none at all Those sober persons that we have to do with will not plead an unwritten grant If any do so they must make it evident to a Minister before he can take it for currant If there be any written grant let them shew it for we know of none But yet we shall attempt the proof of the Negative and then examine the Arguments which are usually brought for the Affirmative If the Children of such Parents have such Right to Baptism it is either for their own sake i.e. some Title or ground in themselves 2. or for their immediate parents 3. or their Ancestors 4. or some Undertakers 5. or the Church These five grounds are pleaded by some And though our Question directly speaketh only of the second and therefore if any of the rest be proved it nothing makes against our Negative determination because we take it Reduplicativè of the children of such Parents as theirs yet we judge it most usefull to our main end that we touch upon each of these several Claims And 1. If the Infants of such Parents have any such Right from any thing in themselves it is either from somewhat proper to themselves and some others such as they or somewhat common to all Infants But neither of these Ergo 1. For the first Member I know nothing said but this Possibly they may have some seed of Grace in them we know not the contrary Answ. 1. As to us it s all one non esse non apparere we must have some Evidence of such a seed of Grace or else we cannot discern it 2. Else we must baptize the children of all or any Heathen or Infidel because for ought we know they may have some seed of Grace For the second Member it is thus argued by some God requireth nothing but Consent on our parts to our enterance into Covenant with him seeing it is a Covenant of free Grace but all Infants must by us be supposed to Consent therefore all must be supposed to have Right to Baptism The Major we grant The Minor they would thus prove It is a Rule in the Civil Law That it is suppâ—sed that a man will be willing of his own Good And another Rule there is That the Law supposeth a man to be what he ought to be till the contrary appear therefore Infants who make not the contrary appear are by us to be judged virtual Consenters or Accepters of the Covenant and consequently to be Baptized Answ. These Rules may hold in dealings between man and man about such things as Nature may both discern to be Good and desire but they cannot hold in the Case in hand 1. Because Nature cannot sufficiently discern the Desirableness of the Blessings of the Covenant compared with those things that must be renounced 2. Nor can it truly desire them without Grace 3. And the common Experience of the world telleth us that the most of men by far do not truly consent when they hear the terms of the Covenant This therefore may not be supposed For Natures Inclination to our own Good is no sufficient ground of the supposition Nor yet any Obligation that can lie on us to charitable thoughts of Infant 's Inclinations For it is one of the Principles of our Religion that Nature is so depraved as that every man is the great Enemy of himself consequentially as being inclined to the way of his own ruine till Christ the Physitian of Nature do work a Cure 4. And if this Argument would hold it would prove that all the Infants of the world have right to Baptism which is not to be supposed 5. Yea it wouâ—d prove that they have equal right with Christians which is yet more evidently false 6. Infants in such Covenants are reputed to be as their Paâ—â—nt who â—huse for them that cannot chuse for themselves If therefore the Parents consent not it is supposed that the Child consenâ—s not and no parent can truly consent for his childe that re useth for himself 7. The Covenant hath not only benefits on Gods part to be conferred but also duties on our part required and it cannot be supposed that all will faithfully perform such duties So much for the first pretended Title The second pretended Title of such Infants to Baptism is upon the account of the Interest of their immediate Parents and because this is both the proper subject of our question and also the great difficuly and most insisted on I shall say somewhat more to it And I prove the Negative thus 1. If notoriously ungodly Parents have no right themselves to the Benefits of the Covenant nor to be Baptized if it were now to do then cannot their children have a right upon the account of any interest of theirs But the Antecedent is true Therefore the validity of the consequence is evident in that no man can give that he hath none to give nor can we derive any Interest from him that hath none himself If any say he may have an Interest for his child that hath none for himself I Reply 1. Then the childe hath not his interest in and with the Parent nor as reputed a member of him 2. That Interest must be produced and proved I have not yet heard what it should be save what the next Objection intimates Why then may not the same be said of an Infidel that he may have a right for his child though none for himself It is objected that being himself baptized he once had right to Church-membership for himself and his child and though he hath lost this by Apostacy himself yet there is no reason why his child should be a loser by his fall Answ. 1. According to this objection the children of all Infidels Jews Turks and Heathens should have right for their Parents sake supposing those Parents to have been once baptized and now to be Apostates 2. But those children were either born before their Parents Apostacy or after If before then I grant the Parent loseth not the childs right by Apostacy because that right was fixed upon the child himself upon the account of the Parents interest And we may suppose him baptized thereupon and so there is no cause for a doubt For as the case is rare for a man that before was rightfully a Church-member to the outward appearance to Apostatize between the Birth and Baptism so I will purposely shun that Controversie Whether the child by such Apostacy loseth his right or whether a Baptized
Infant be supposed excommunicate in the Fathers excommunication For my part I affirm no such thing But if the child be born after the Parents Apostacy from faith or a godly life then no man can say the childe loseth any right by the Parents sin for how can he losâ— that which he never had If you say the Parent had it for himself and his child I answer true had he been sincere on supposition he had children but not for those children he had not though if he continue in the faith till he have them he then hath â—hose Priviledges for himself and them they can be no subjects of right that had no existence I grant he may have a grant of such right to him and his seed as a Prince may grant to a faithful subject to him and to his heirs But 1. This is on supposition that he will have heirs 2. That he forfeiâ—s noâ— his right before he hath heirs otherwise as he apparenâ—ly â—â—sâ—th it to himself so doth he to them if he make an intercision he stops the conveyance of the benefit by a prevention so that it never comes to the Heir But because it is the antecedent that requires all the proof that notoriously ungodly Parents have no Interest themselves to be Church-members and to be baptized if it were to be done again I shall prove it as followeth 1. Argu. They that have not that faith which is the condition of the Covenant and notoriously shew that they have it not have no right to Baptism But such are all they who are notoriously ungodly Ergo. c. Or they that notoriously manifest that they consent not to the terms of the Covenant have no right to Baptism But c. Ergo. The Major is proved hence 1. What else is there to hinder any Heathen from the like Right 2. Because that the probable Profession of such a further consent is necessary to justifie baptizing of them 3. Because mutual consent is necessary to a mutual Covenant and the Covenant must be mutual no man hath right to Gods part that refuseth his own This is all so far past question that I pass it over the more lightly All the doubt then is of the Minor Whether no man have the necessary condition of the baptismal Covenant on Gods part that is notoriously ungodly or Whether all such ungodly men do notoriously manifest that they consent not to the terms of the Covenant I speak not here of any subsequent condition which God imposeth upon the Covenanter only for the future but only of the condition which God imposeth upon us that he may be in Covenant with us and that it may be a bargain and that this is a true inconsistent with notorious ungodliness I was going about at large to prove it But I remember that I have done it already in 26. Arguments against Mr. Blake's and therefore I think it better for you me that I refer you thither than to write them here over again or needlesly to add any more to the same purpose If any say that though God require as a duty such a Faith as is inonsistent with notorious ungodliness yet not as Absolutely necessary that he may be engaged to us in Covenant or that we may have proper right to Baptism I answer God hath but one Covenant of Grace which Baptism sealeth our sound believing is the condition of that one Covenant that is that it may be a Mutual Actual Covenant If then there be any other Covenant having other Conditions we must wait till both Covenant and Conditions be made known Were it worth the while or a thing necessary I would stand to prove the Negative viz. that there is no Covenant sealed by Baptism which only promiseth Baptism as the Benefit or any other meer Externals but that the Covenant which Baptism sealeth is only that which promiseth Remission Salvation and outward Mercies as appurtenances and means so far as necessary Arg. 2. They that have no right to Remission of sin have no right given them by God to Baptism but the Notoriously Ungodly have no right to remission of sin Ergo. c. The Minor will not be denied The Major is proved thus God hath appointed no Baptism as his gift but what is for remission of sin as the thing sealed and exhibited by it Therefore They that have no right to Remission have no right to Baptism The Antecedent is undoubted The Consequent is grounded on this truth that God hath made no Covenant to any man of the bare seals without the thing signified shew such a Promise if you affirm it 2. What God hath joyned so nearly as the exhibiting sign and thing exhibited no man may lawfully put asunder It s a mans sin to take the sign without the thing signified It is not probable therefore that God hath made any Promise of the naked sign without the thing signified If God give right to such an ungodly man to be baptized then he gives him right to be Baptized for Remission of sin for this is his express and affixed Use and signification but he doth not give him right to be Baptized for the Remission of sin Ergo. c. The Minor I prove thus If he give him Right to be baptized for the Remission of sin then either for actual Remission to be sealed by Baptism or for Conditional future Remission but for neither of these Ergo. Not for Actual Remission for then Notoriously Ungodly persons are Actually remitted which is not true Nor for Conditâ—onal for then no more is given then all the World hath at least that hear the Gospel even persecuting Infidels and then all they may as well be baptized for God pardoneth all upon condition they repent and believe Argu. 3. If God be not at all actually obliged in Covenant to any notorious ungodly man then is he not obliged to give him Baptism But God is not obliged so to him Ergo. The Minor is unquestionable The Major is granted by most of our Divines who make the contrary Doctrine Pelagianism that God should be obliged to man in the state of Nature in such a Covenant If God be obliged to give them Baptism then if he should not give it them he breaks Promise with them But the Consequence is unsound Ergo c. Nor doth he give them power to claim it from the Church-Officers for they can shew no Title Argum. 4. If God have given a Covenant-Right to a notorious ungodly man to be baptized then either to baptism only or other blessings with it but neither of these Ergo c. The first will not be affirmed What then be the other blessings Either they are special and spiritual but that 's not defended or outward and common which is like is meant for they call it an outward Covenant Buâ— as God hath given outward things but conditionally to Believers so there is no such Covenant of outward mercies alone that can be shewed in the
proclaims it with his name and doubtless both the Threatning and the Promise is such that it cannot be that the same persons are under both at once being certainly therefore under the Threatning they are from under the Promise Argum 4. The Threatning to the third and fourth generation is necessary to be understood on supposition that there be an uninterrupted succession of wicked Progenitors therefore by proportion so must the Promise be understood as to a necessary succession of faithful Progenitors Argum. 5. The natural Interest that Ancestors have in such Posterity is not immediate but mediante Parente proximo therefore so is the Covenant-Interest because it proceedeth on supposition of the Natural We receive nothing from a Grandfather but by a Father but what dependeth on his free will an intercision therefore preventeth our Priviledges It is here objected that it is harsh to affirm that the immediate Parents sin depriveth Posterity of the Benefit though the Ancestors were never so godly for so the children should suffer for the Parents sin Ans. 1. the children never had right therefore never lost it 2. It s just that they suffer for the Parents sin when Parents have lost their right they cannot convey it to others Object Paul saith of the Jews They are beloved for the Fathers sake Answ. So far beloved as that God will reclaim them in after-ages and now convert a remnant but not so far beloved as that any child of an unbelieving Jew had right to Baptism for Abraham or any Ancestors sake and that Love was from a part of the Covenant proper to Abrahams seed Object Thâ—re could not be a higher evidence of Apâ—stacy than to giâ—e their children to a false God yet this did the children of Israel and yet their Posterity had right to Circumcision Answ. I will reserve the answer of this to the end where we shall have further reason to consider it and next proceed to the fourth pretended Title of such Infants The fourth part of this Question is Whether the Infants of notorious ungodly parents may not have right to Baptism on the account of some Vndertakers Answ. If this be so it s nothing against our Negative determination of the main Question viz. Whether they have right for their Parents sake 2. We distinguish of Undertakers some are such as will undertake that another man shall bring up his child well 2. Some will undertake to do it themselves yet not to educate it as their own but as another mans and at his disposal neither of these undertakings can give any right 3. But if the child do either by the total resignation of the Parent or by adoption or the death of the Parents or by purchase or any other just means become his Own that undertakes for him so that the child is ejus juris as his own children are and at his dispose then the Question is much harder And for my part I encline to judge that such a child hath Right upon that mans account 1. Because that in a Law-sense this man is his Father 2. Because all that God requireth in the free universal Covenant of Grace to our participation of his Benefits is our consent and children do consent bo those whose they are For they that owe them or whose they are have the disposal of them and so of their Wills interpretatively and may among men make any Covenant for them which is for their good at least and oblige them to the performance of conditions 3. Because God so determined it with Abraham when he called him so solemnly to renew his Covenant and so to the Israeliets after Of which for brevity see what I have said in my book of Baptism chap. 29. pag. 101 102. which I need not here recite Let every man see with his own eyes but for my part I resolve till I see better reasons for the contrary to admit no child to baptism uâ—on the undertaking of any other susceptors such as our Godfathers and Godmothers were without a better Title then their susception but if any will say This child is mine and at my disposal though not mine by natural generation I will not dare to refuse to Baptize it if the person that presenteth it and devoteth it to God be capable of so doing as being himself a Believer And I think that it is a considerable work of Charity to get the children of Infidels or such among us are nominal Christians and Infidels indeed that they may have that benefit by you which they cannot have from their natural parents The 5th Title that is commonly pleaded for the Right of the children of notoriously ungodly Parents to baptism is upon the account of the Churches faith and the Magistrates Authority over them For this it is pleaded 1. That the Magistrate or soveraign Ruler hath power to dispose of his Subjects and therefore to make Covenants for them and in their names as much as a Parent hath for the power of a Magistrate is greater than of a Parent in that the Magâ—strate may put children to death and so may not a Parent Answ. 1. The Soveraign hath a Governing power above a Parent but it is not on that the great contract or right is grounded But the Parent hath a greater propriety in the child than the Governor and so hath more Right to dispose of him in this case The Soveraigns power is in order to the Good of the Common-wealth the Parents is for the Good of the Child directly 2. Bodin and some others think that the Roman Custom was good that Parents should have power of Life and Death as to their Children though few approve his Judgement or reasons 3. I doubt not but a Soveraign may use his Authority to procure the baptizing of Children by the Parents dedication of them to God But still it must be modiante parente vel proparente by procuring their consent who have the nearest Interest in the child and greater than the Magistrate can have though not greater ruling power Obje But there are some Rulers that are Domini as well as Rectores and the people and all that they have are theirs so that there is no proprietary in the Nation but themselves and in such a case it seems that they may dispose of the consent of their subjects An. 1. yeâ— It s lis sub judice whether this be not meer unlawfull Tyranny or Usurpation and so the Title Null because against the Law of God in nature 2. Or if any think that the example of Joseph or of the Israelites buying children will prove the contrary yet 1. It can be but to their Civils as Goods Lands c. their Right wherein is adventitious and accidental and not to the fruit of their bodies where their right is so natural that none can take it by violence from them I say therefore that here it cannot be without the Parents voluntary Alienation and Resignation of their Children to the Soveraign which they
and consequently that the evident discoveries of a state of Ungodliness and many more were then punished with Death according to Gods Law And then it must needs follow that no child of a man Notoriously ungodly born of his procreation in that condition had right to Circumcision For dead men do not procreate And whether Cutting off from his people be meant of capital punishment such places as Exod. 31.14 15. would make one doubt Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore for it is holy unto you every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death for whosoever doth any work therein that soul shall be cut off from amongst his people See also Levit. 20.17 18. And if it be meant of Excommunication if the parent be cut off from his people then cannot his son for any Interest of his be â—nnumerated to that people and entred among them The first Observation and this last laid together clear the whole Cause viz. that the Magistrate was not to force any barely to be Circumcised but to enter into Gods Covenant and so to be circumcised and therefore was he not to force any out of the Covenant to be circumcised and then that he was to cut off the Covenant-breakers or notoriously ungodly ones 11. The next Observation that I would give towards the Answering of this Objection is that it could not be expected that any Magistrate Priest or other in Power should hinder any Israëlite from circumcising his children For to circumcise them was every mans Duty and to baptize them is every mans Duty in the world now that is to give up himself and his child in sincere Covenant to God and seal it as he hath appointed but not dissemblingly to use the sign without the Covenanting and Resignation on his part Now if any Israëlite were unfit for this Ordinance it being the Magistrates duty to put him to death or cut him off he could not judge him unfit and so forbid him the Ordinance without condemning himself The first thing that lay upon him was to cut him off for the sin which caused his unfitness 12. Note also that Circumcision much differed from Baptism in this that it was not the Priests work but Parents to circumcise his children this being so no wonder if there were not the scruples about the persons fiâ—ness and worthiness and the childrens right as now there is in Baptism For what man is so prone to scruple or question his own Right or his childrens as another may be And the same reason that should move a Parent to question his Right would move him also to Repent and Recover his Right No wonder therefore if the Execution answered not Gods Institution To all this it is objected that we read not that any Infants were kept back or that God blamed them for it Answ. 1. I have given sufficient Reasons 2. God would rather blame them for that sin which caused their unfitness it being not the Circumcising then in the Baptism now that he is against directly but the ungodliness and therefore would not have the ordinances forborn but on supposition that the sin will not be forborn tha 's the disease that he would have them heal both then and now Obj. Joshua is commanded by God to Circumcise them and accordingly he doth Circumcise all the people yet no doubt many of them were Notoriously ungodly Josh. 5. Answer 1. Joshuah did but command it to be done 2. I have given the reason why all should be Circumcised 3. It is unproved that any one of them were know to Joshuah to be ungodly To clear this further I will add two more observations 13. Note that all those that were charged with Murmuring Unbelief c. in the wilderness were all destroyed there and also that for 40 years their Children had been uncircumcised Only Caleb and Joshua were left So that those of 40 or 30 or 20 years of age must be Circumcised on the account of their own Covenanting and not plead the right of their Parents 14. Note also that the very examples of Gods Judgements do intimate that Notorious Ungodliness was not so common among them as some imagine Multitudes are thought very Godly now that murmur in lesser straits than they were then in and that are palpably guilty of much unbelief or less temptations All Israel was put to the worse for the sake of one Achan that plundred no man unjustly but only thought to rescue some desirable treasures from the flames I wish that no soldiers would now do worse that are reputed extraordinarily Godly and are never blemished by such actions in their own eyes or any others I will not stand to add more because I have been so long If any man Judge that all this is no sufficient answer to their Argument from Circumcision I further add 2. Though this be my own thoughts yet it is not a few of those Divines that are Godly and Learned that give one of these two following answers 1. That External and Ceremonial Purity was then most openly looked at which was but a Type of the spiritual purity under the Gospel and therefore no wonder if God that then permitted Polygamie without reproof permitted the circumcision of all Jews yea encouraged it seeing that the Body of that People were Gods visible Heritage as a Type of the Catholick visible Church now The Magistrates therefore might compell them as Jews to be Circumcised but so may not ours compell us as Englishmen 2. That Circumcision was not only appointed to be the seal of the Covenant of grace but also a peculiar Covenant annexed to Abraham and his seed and that not all but those only that were to possess the land of Canaan And therefore as it was not all the people that God had on earth that were promised to possess the land of Canaan but only the Israelites and those proselites that came over to inhabite among them so neither was Circumcision commanded to all nor was necessary to them but to a Jew it was necessary as a Jew how ungodly soever Though this be none of my answer yet among many Improbable opinions I see not but the Thesis which I deny is much more improbable than this is and therefore if I needs must hold one I see not but that I should rather hold this Nor will this weaken our Argument for Infant-Baptism fetcht from the Infant Church-membership of the Jews which is the great objection as long as the whole species of Infants are of distinct consideration from a Jews Infant as such and as long as the grand Covenant of grace and the peculiar promise to the Jews are so distinct yea and Church-membership and Circumcision so distinct as they are Let them leave us to make good our Arguments in this Argu. 2. We may lawfully Baptize the Infants of any Church-members Notoriously ungodly persons are Church-members therefore we may lawfully Baptize their Infants Ans. 1. I deny the Major Because some Church-members are
in such a condition as that the first thing you are bound to do with them is to cast them out or suspend them till then When you are bound presently to cast him out you are not at the same time to give him the Sacrament of the Lords Supper nor his Infants on his account the Sacrament of Baptism Indeed if they had Right to Church-membership their Infants might have so too 2 I deny the Minor Other ungodly persons are visible members but notorious ungodly ones are not They are pso jure excommunicate not meerly as mâ—riting iâ— but on the Notoriousness of their incapacity and the pleasure of the Legislator as is afore declared Obj. The Notorious ungodly were Church-members among the Jews therefore they may be sâ— now Answ. 1. Prove the Antecedent 2. The question is not what men mis-judged them but how God esteemed or pronounced them 3. God would not have them to be Church-members while such whom he commanded the Magistrate to put to death But c. Ergo. Obj They were not to be excommunicate or put away from the Passover Answ. 1. He that is stoned to death is excommunicate and put away from the Passover He that is cut off from the living is put out of the Church on earth 2. I will not waste time to prove Jewish excommunication till I know of some tolerable answer given to that which Mr Gilespie beside many others hath written so largely already Argum. 3. Infants in Covenant have right to Baptism The Infants of Notorious Ungodly Parents are in Covenant Ergo. Ans. I have in my account to Mr. Blake told you so fully how far they are in Covenant and how far not that I must refer you thither and not here recite it I deny that God is actually engaged to them in the covenant of Grace which Baptism sealeth but conditionally only and so he is to Infidels that persecute it Though they may be engaged more to God by their own Verbal covenant to him but that altereth not the case Argu. 4. Dogmatical faith giveth Right to Baptism Notoous ungodly Parents have a Dogmatical faith Ergo. c. Answ. I have said so much to Mr. Blake on this that I need not now to add any more Obje Simon Magus had a faith which gave him right to baptism But Simon Magus was then a Notorious ungodly man therefore a Notorious ungodly man may have a faith that may entitle him and his to baptism Ans. See what is said to this in the place before cited Further 1. I yield that Simon had a faith of superficial Assent such as the Devils have in a greater measure and that he professed more than he had and that hereupon the Apostle was warranted to baptize him 2. But I deny the Minor that he was then notoriously ungodly Consider well of Psalm 50.16 Argu. 5. Josiah was lawfully Circumcised upon the Right of Manasseh and Ammon but Manasseh and Ammon were Notoriously ungodly Ergo. Ans Either Josiah was born before his Father Ammon proved Notoriously ungodly or after If before then he received not his right from a Notoriously ungodly Parent If after 1. Then was it contrary to Gods Laws and so could be no true Right For by Gods Laws Manasseh and Ammon should have been put to death And if it be said that these Laws were not to be executed on the Soveraign I answer the want of a power of execution doth not hinder but that they notoriously lost their Right though they kept possession and therefore could convey no Right It follows therefore that either Josiah was circumcised without Right if it be first proved that his father was such at the time of his birth or else that he had his right some other way intimated in the General answer to the Jews case And to them that think the former a hard saying I shall anon shew that the rule holds good in this case that Quod fieri non debet factum valet Argu. 6. Deut. 24 16. The Children shall not be put to death for the Fathers sin and we read not that Ecclesiastical censure should be more severe The child of a Thief is not committed with him to prison and I see no reason that he is committed with him to Sathan therefore there is right to Baptism in the child of an excommunicate person Answ. The question is not of excommunicating a child or committing him to Satan but of addmitting him into the Church at first The Parent cannot convey to the child the Right whith he hath lost we speak only of the Children born after the Parents are excommunicated vel sententiâ vel ipso Jure But of this enough I think before the state of the question is by these Arguers strangely over-lookt Argu. 7. Those that the Apostles Baptized had been ungodly immediately before only at the present they did profess Repentance And so do many of these that you call Notoriously ungodly Ergo. Answ. 1. If it be a probably serious and credible profession fit for that name then are they not Notoriously ungodly 2. According both to Scripture and Reason and common use a mans first or second profession may be credited But if he frequently break his word his credit is lost he is not capable at present of covenanting again till he have by actual Reformation recovered his credit I have such Neighbours as this twenty years together have been constant drunkards and lament it and promise Reformation when they have done and yet once a week or fortnight usually are still drunk To take these mens oft breaking words were to delude Scripture and all Discipline and cross common Reason Yet here we must carefully distinguish between Repentance for such gross sins as continued in are inconsistent with true Grace and Repentance for such infirmities as may stand with Grace not only to live in but not to have or manifest a particular Repentance of As those which are not convinced to be sins c. We speak now of the first Argum. 8. By denying them Baptism we may exasperate the wicked to engage themselves against Christ and us Answ. The Primitive Church under Heathen Princes had much more cause to fear this than we have and yet it did not change their course I take not such carnal Reasons to be worthy to have place among the servants of such a Master who fears not his enemies and will make them bend and return to him but will not himself bend and return to them The truth is had we Magistrates that would so severely punish notorious ungodliness as I think they should do according to Gods Laws that most of this Controversie would be ended and instead of driving men from Gods Ordinances they should be driven from such ungodliness But when Magistrates are so tender of hurting mens Bodies that they let their souls perish or are so much against formality and outside Reformation that they had rather men were Heathens and openly wicked and sinned with Body
to Execute without Judgement and yet this is no denial of the Authority of a Judge So much to the matter of this Argument And now in Sum to the Argument as in Form 1. I deny the first Consequence if it speak of the Nullity of the External Baptism and not only of the Effect and of Gods Engagement to them 2. And consequently I deny the two later Consequences 3. Yea if our Parents Infant-Baptism were null it followeth not that so is their childrens which they had on their account For our Parents might get a Personal Right in Christ and the Covenant after their Baptism before they presented us in Baptism though themselves had not been Baptized 4. And I believe it will be no easie matter to prove that our Parents any or many at least were notoriously ungodly at our birth 5. Lastly if all this satisfie not but any man will yet needs believe that it is an unavoidable consequence of our Doctrine that The Baptism of the Infants of Notoriously Ungodly Parents is null though I am not of hâ—s minde yet I think it is a less dangerous opinion and less improbable then theirs whom we now oppose I know no such great ill effects it would have if a man that mistakingly did suppose his Baptism Null to satisfie his Conscience were baptized again without denying the baptism of Infants or any unpeaceable disturbing of the Church in the management thereof I confess I never had any Damning or Excommunicating thoughts in my mind against Cyprian Firmilian and the rest of the African Bishops and Churches who rebaptized those that were baptized by Hereticks and in Council determined it necessary and were so zealous for it And though while I captivated my judgement to a Party and to admired Persons I embraced the new Exposition of Acts 19. which Beza thankfully professeth to have received from Marúixius who as some say was the first Inventer of it yet I must confess that both before I knew what other men held and since I better know who expound it otherwise and on what grounds I can no longer think that is the meaning of the Text especially when I impartially peruse the words themselves Calvin did not think that the 5th versâ— was Paul's words of John's Hearers but Luke's words of Paul's Hearers and had no way to avoid the Exposition which admitted their rebaptizing but by supposing that Paul did not Baptize them again with Water but with the Holy Ghost only and that of that the fifth verse is meant I never read that John Baptist did Baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus expresly and denominatively but only as Paul here speaks that they should believe on him that should come after whom Paul here Expositorily denominateth the Lord Jesus And the words When they heard this seem to me plainly to refer to Paul's saying as the thing which they heard Also the Connexion of the fifth verse to the sixth shews it For else there is no reason given of Pauls proceeding to that Imposition of Hands nor any satisfaction to the doubt at which he stuck or which he propounded And I confess if I must be swayed by men I had rather think well of the judgment of the Fathers and Church of all Ages who for ought I find do all that have wrote of it with one consent place a greater difference then we do between John's Baptism and Christs and did expound this Text so as to assert that these 12 Disciples were baptized again by Paul or on his Preaching And for that great and unanswerable Argument wherewith Beza and others do seek to maintain the necessity of their sense I confess it rather perswades me to the contrary For whereas they imagine it intolerable for us to conclude or think that Christ was not Baptized with Christian Baptism which himself did institute or command I must needs say I think it much more probable that he was not seeing the Christ an Baptism is Essentially a Covenanting and Sealing of our Covenant with God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as our Creator Redeemer and Sanctifier and appointed to be Gods Seal of his washing away our sins by Christs blood all which I know Christ was not capable of And I suppose it more credible that Christ himself should be the Instituter of such an Evangelical Ordinance than John and that he came to fulfill all Legal Righteousness rather than that Evangelical Righteousness which consisteth in obeying himself by doing those things which he hath appointed to redeemed sinners as such for their recovery But of this let every man judge as he is illuminated If I err my danger and deserved reproach I think is no greater than the Ancient Fathers and the Church for so many hundred years that were of the same mind Even they that were nearer to that Age when these matters of Fact were done But for our case its apparent there 's no need of Re-baptizing for there is no Nullity I have done with the Argument but yet there is one Question more that may not be passed over though but on the by and that is Whether the Baptism of all those persons be not Null and they to be Re-baptized who were baptized by such as were Notoriously or Secretly unordained men and no true Ministers To which I only say in brief No 1. If they were not known to be no Ministers it was no fault of ours we waited in Gods appointed way for his Ordinances and therefore though they were sins to them they are valid blessings to us that were not guilty 2. If they were Notoriously no Ministers though it might be our Parents sin that we were presented to such for Baptism yet it is not Null For in these Relations these Instruments are not Essential to the Relation nor to the Ordinance at all Though I would be loth as the Fathers and Papists did to allow a Lay person yea a woman saith Tertullian to baptize in case of Necessity yet should I not be very hasty to Re-baptize such supposinig that they had all the substance of the Ordinance as being baptized into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Argu. 10. Whoever ought in Duty to dedicate his Child to God in the holy Covenant ought also to Baptize him But all notorious ungodly men ought so to dedicate their children to God Ergo c. Answ. I grant the Conclusion It is every mans duty on earth that hears the Gospel to be baptized and give up his children if he have any to Christ in Baptism that is to believe and consent to the Covenant of Grace and so to be baptized But it followeth not that it is their Duty to be Externally Baptized without Faith and such Consent 2. Note also that this Argument as well proves that all the Children of persecuting Heathens should be baptized as ungodly pretended Christians For it is their Duty too Object But when they present their Children they do their Duty though but part
their seed which Coram Deo will warrant them to require and receive them Prop. 2. God hath not commanded or allowed any that have not saving faith to seek or receive the Sacraments in that condition but hath made it the order of their Duty first to Repent and Believe and then to seek and receive the Sacraments These two Propositions I shall now briefly but sufficiently prove The first hath in it three parts 1. That God hath not made any Deed of Gift of Sacraments or right to Sacraments to any that are short of saving Faith save the seed of the faithful 2. That therefore such have no title to Sacraments Coram Deo that can properly be so called 3. That therefore they cannot lawfully Claim and Receive them though if they claim them we may lawfully Administer them To avoid confusion I shall take these distinctly 1. That God hath made no Promise or Deed of Gift of Sacraments or Right to them to any that are short of saving faith or on any lower Condition than saving Faith I prove Arg. 1. There is none such to be found in Scripture Therefore God hath made none such We have long expected the production of any such Gift or Promise and yet none is produced Which is likely would have been if it could have been found And if it be not in Scripture it is nowhere Arg. 2. If the Promise or grant of Right to Sacraments be made on any Condition besides saving faith then 1. either on the Condition of the Profession of that Faith 2. or on the Condition of a real inferiour faith or 3. on Condition of the Profession of that inferiour faith But none of these three Ergo The Enumeration will be acknowledged sufficient by them that we have now to deal with And 1. That the bare profession of saving Faith is never made the condition of any Promise or Deed of Gift by which a Title to Baptism is conveyed appeareth 1. In that none such are found in all the Scripture God nowhere saith If thou wilt but profess or say thâ—t thou believest thou shalt be baptized or have Right to Sacraments though the Church must administer them on that Profession 2. Else God should command a man to lye or justifie him in it and make a lye the condition of his mercies Though every duty be not the condition of Justification yet every such condition is a duty and every duty is commanded and God doth not Command any man to lye or to profess to be what he is not or do what he doth not or have what he hath not Much less will he make this the condition of his promises Object God commandeth both Believing and Profession therefore Profession is part of their duty and their sin is not that they Profess but that they do not Believe Answ. But God so connexeth these duties together that the later is a sin and no duty if it keep not its place and be performed without the former If a man tell a lye by speaking any good which he never thought its true that God would have had him both think it and speak it and then it would have been no lye but he would not have him speak it before he think it for then its a lye And you cannot say that his sin is only in not thinking it and not in speaking it which was part of his duty For it was both his sin Not to think it and to speak it when he did not think it and speâ—king it was not his duty save upon presupposal that he think it or it was not in any other order to be performed The same is here the case between Believing and professing to Believe 3. God maketh nothing the matter of Duty or the Condition of his Gifts but what hath some moral worth in it which may shew it fit to be well pleasing to him But the bare verbal Profession of that which is not in the heart hath no such Moral worth in it as may make it pleasing in his eyes Ergo 2. And then for an Inferiour Faith that this is not the condition of Gods Promise I have fully proved in another Disputation Moreover 1. No such promise can be produced out of the Word of God If it could its lâ—ke we should have had it ere now 2. The promises are expresly made on the condition of saving faith therefore not of any other Of this more in the following Arguments Only here I add that as to the Administration of Seals no man can know the sincerity or reality of an inferior kind of Faith any more than of a saving Faith 3. And then for the third viz. The Profession of a Dogmatical or other inferior Faith it can be no condition 1. Because the faith it self professed is none therefore the profession of it iâ— none 2. The profession of a saving faith is none Much less of a lower faith Observe in all this that when I mention a Dogmatical Faith I take it in Mr. Blake's sense and the sense that its commonly taken in viz. for an assent that comes short of that which justifieth and not as some of the Ancients did who called justifying Faith by the name of Dogmatical Faith as dist not from Miraculous Faith because they ordinarily placed Justifying Faith in Assent So Cyril and John Hierosol Cateches 5. pag. mihi 43. distinguisheth Faith into Dâ—gmatical which is saving and into that which is of Grace by which Miracles are wrought He means by Grace the extraordinary Gift of the Spirit And so some Protestants too Legâ— D. Alard Vaek Comment in Symbol Apost Proleg Cap. 5. pag. 20.21 Argum. 3. It is one and the same Covenant Testament or Deed of Gift by which God bestoweth Christ and Right to Sacraments and that on the same conditions But the Covenant or Testament bestoweth himself only on the condition of saving Faith Therefore it bestoweth right to Sacraments only on condition of saving Faith That there is any Covenant distinct from that one Covenant of Grace Mr. Blake disowneth as a fancy that never entred into his thoughts pag. 125. That this one Covenant or Testament giveth Right to Christ and to Sacraments upon the condition of one and the same faith is evident 1. Because the word distinguisheth not therefore in this case we may not distinguish It offereth Christ and Sacraments to men on these terms if they will believe but it doth not give us the least hint that by believing is meant two several sorts of faith whereof one is of necessity to right in Christ the other to right to Sacraments Mr. Blake that so abhorreth the imputing of equivocal terms to the Scripture I hope will not feign them to speak so equivocally If the Word had ever said It is such a kind of faith that is the condition of Right to Christ and such a different kind of Faith that is the condition of Right to Sacraments then we might have warrantably so distinguished our selves
enquiry Which is the Church that hath this Infallibility Unless we say that all have it that call themselves the Church against which many Councils have Judged when they required the rebaptizing of all that were baptized by the Paulianists c. In a word all the Arguments which we use against the Papal Infallibility might be here taken up and Voluminously managed against this And if Mr. Blake disown this Infallibility there is no way left but either to say that God hath no Judgement of this Case but what is fallible which I hope he will not or that God hath one Judgement of it and the Church another and then we have that we seek If he say that God hath no immediate Judgement at all of it but only the Churches which is mediately his I answer 1. The Churches is not mediately his when it is sinfully erroneous 2. If God have a knowledge and observance of it then he hath a Judgement of it But to deny Gods knowledge or observance of it is intolerable therefore 3. And I must say that since I have observed in Scripture both the use that God makes of good Angels and of evil about the sons of men and what appearances they make before him Job 1. and how the faithful have their Angels beholding Gods face how they have charge of us and bear us up and are ministring spirits for our good and how the Excommunicate are delivered up to Satan with much more of the like I easily believe that God may well be said to have a forum and pass his sentences on the sons of men before his Angels were it but by committing his will to Execution by them For so far as they are Executioners they must have a Commission for Execution which containeth or implieth the sentence And so there is a Justification and a Condemnation now before them Argum. 2. If God have no other Judgement about Right to Ordinances but the Churches Judgement then Hypocrites have equal Right before God and before the Church or Judice Deo Judice Ecclesia yea it is the same Right which is more than equal Right But the Consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent A Jew that would make a jest of Christ and Baptism by a feigned Profession hath such a Right Ecclesia Judice as that the Church cannot contradict it But God can contradict it The Church cannot find any imperfection in it but God can Ecclesia Judice his Right is as good as the soundest Believers but God will not say so He may charge the Church with doing him wrong if they deny him the Sacrament but so he cannot charge God if he hinder or prohibit it Surely God will acknowledge a further Title to Sacraments in the Saints than such a Jew or Pagan hath Argum. 3. Where there are different Executions there are different Judgements But God hath an Execution different from the Churches in this Case as is apparent 1 Cor. 11. For this cause many are sick and weak c. If we would judge our selves we should not be judged c. Therefore God hath a Judgement differing from the Churches Argum. 4. If about all humane acts God have a Judgement differing from mans then about the present Case But the Antecedent is so evident and so momentous that I hope few Christians will question it Instead of arguing such a Cause any further I shall lament the case of the Church among us that any should be found among its Reverend Pious Guides that shall so confidently publish or so easily entertain as some seem to do so strange a point as this which we oppose For how far may they yet be led that can so easily be led to this Compassion of the Church of Christ doth urge me to speak thus though I know to the guilty its like to be offensive But yet we may thank God that there be so few of such conceits sure I am it is ordinary with Protestants and Papists in such cases to distinguish between forum Dei Ecclesiae Gods Judgement and the Churches Instead of citing many I shall now take up with one only whose Cause against the Separatists did lead him so much to have entertaâ—ned the helps that lie on that side that if he had thought this notion of Mr. Blakes sound he was very like to have received it Rutherford in his due Right of Presb. Cap. 9. § 9. p. 242. Dist. 1. Any who blamelesly professeth Christ is Ecclesiastically in foro Ecclesiae a true and valid member of the Church visible having Ecclesiastical power valid for that effect but except he be a sincere believer he is not morally and in foro Dei a living member of the invisible Church Dist. 3. The Invisible Church Catholick is the principal prime and native subject of all the Priviledges of Christians the Covenant Promises Title of Spouse Bride Redeemed Temple of the holy Spirit c. And the Church Visible as she is such is no waies such a subject the non-consideration whereof we take to be the ground of many Errors in our Reverend Brethren in this matter which also deceived Papists as our Divines demonstrate Dist. 4. A seen Profession is the ground of members admission to the Visible Church Hence there is a satisfaction of the Conscience of the Church in admitting of members either in the Judgement of Charity or in the Judgement of Verity Dist. 5. There is a satisfaction in the Judgement of Charity Positive when we see signs which positively assure us that such an one is Regenerate and there is a satisfaction Negative when we know nothing on the contrary which hath a latitude for I have a Negative satisfaction of the Regeneration of some whose persons and behaviour I know neither by sight or report This is not sufficient for the accepting of a Church-membership therefore somewhat more is required pag. 244. Concl. 2. The Invisible and not the Visible Church is the principal prime and only proper subject with whom the Covenant of Grace is made to whom all the Promises do belong and to whom all Titles Styles Properties and Priviledges of special note in the Mediator do belong If our Reverend Brethren would be pleased to see this they would forsake their doctrine of a visible constituted Church c. 1. The Church to whom the Covenant and the Promises of the Covenant are made is a Church and a seed which shall endure as the daies of heaven Psal. 89.35 36. and such as can no more fall away from being Gods people in an eternal Covenant with him then their God can alter what he hath spoken or lie Psal. 89.33 34 35. They can no more cease from being in Gods favour or be cast off of God than the Ordinances of Heaven can depart from before God c. Jer. 31.35 36 37. Isa. 54.10 or then God can retract his Oath and Promises Heb. 6.18 19 20. But the Visible Church of this or that Parish c. Pag.
as the Jews were so many of the Gentiles as profess Christianitie And because it is no more it is nothing to their purpose To the Third I Answer There 's no doubt but the promise belongs to all that God shall call that is the bare offer belongs to all them that are called uneffectually and still remain in unbelief And the worst of them are invited to Repent and Believe which when they do they have Title in that same promise to Remission and the Seals of it And when they profess to Repent and Believe and so require the Seals they have such a Right Coram Ecclesiâ as that we must admit of them But more than this here is yet no proof of To the Fourth The Called some of them obey not at all some of them obey ore tenus and as to some faith short of justifying and some of them obey the Call sincerely You mean the Second Of whom I say 1. Prove if you can that any called ones may have the Sacraments that profess not saving Faith 2. And prove that they who barely profess it have the Title which is in controversie between us which will justifie their claim as well as our giving it on that claim The saying that they are called is no proof As for your phrase of an outward being in Covenant you know I affirmed it long ago ex parte hominis they outwardly covenant with God and oblige themselves But if you mean it ex parte Dei that he hath any such meer outside promises when he meaneth not as he speaks or that he is actually obliged as a Covenanter to them yea but for outward things I have long waited from others for the proof in vain As to the phrase Equivocal you shall have more of it God willing in due place To the Fifth There 's difference between the Jews then and the World 1. In that one part of the Jews were sincere in the Covenant and that in great numbers in whom as it were the life of the Church did abide 2. In that the rest of them as to the main body professed that true faith which others had 3. And in that such bare professors were thereupon admitted into that Societie and into those Ordinances which tended to help them to that sinceritie which they wanted some of which Ordinances they were immediately bound to use and others of them but in order after their Conversion and though they used them unjustly before Conversion the thing was a mercy in it self though mis-received by them 4. And then they had many temporal promises which no other Nation had nor have we I think here 's a difference from the Gentile world Prove more if you affirm it To the Sixth I have answered it over and over before They are commanded to be circumcised but as a sign and seal of the Covenant Therefore they are bound first in order to consent in heart to the Covenant And if they do the former without the later it may shew that they have by outward covenanting obliged themselves to God and so are annumerated with his listed souldiers by the Church But it proveth not that God is in actual obligation to them except only as to any of those mercies that were absolutely promised to the Israelites and belong not to us To the Seventh The weak unworthy Author of the book of Infant Baptism whom you are pleased to load with a Title which his conscience doth disown doth heartily persist in believing that the conditional Covenant is made to more than the Elect even to all at least that hear it and that this is the effect of Christs blood and that the entrance into covenant and accepting the terms of it ore tenus or not sincerely and unreservedly is common to Elect and Reprobate But all this is nothing to the present business To the Eighth It is a strange consequence that such Must renounce their profession and never come to ordinances c. Must importeth Duty And their duty is sincerely to Repent and Believe and Profess and not to renounce profession but only to lament the falshood and hypocrisie in professing what they did not do Nor is any bound to stay from Ordinances simply but to repent believe and so come as Peter hid Simon Magus Repent and Pray c. But if he will profess falsly and come without Repentance let him do it at his peril and not think God is obliged to bless him in it which would lead hard up to the Papists Opus operatum though I know how much this is disclaimed by Mr. Blake For when you liberally give such men a a Title Coram Deo to the Seals what can be that Title but the Opus operatum of a verbal profession For though a Faith short of Justifying be talkt of none of you all can tell who hath it and who hath it not and yet I find not so much openness as to speak out and tell us whether indeed all the Hypocrites that have not so much as the Dogmatical Faith which they profess have indeed a Title before God to the Seals on the Opus operatum of profession or not Though by consequence it appeareth that you must say so or cast all your cause away To the ninth I Answer If you know him not a dissembler he is to you what he professeth to be If therefore he profess that the Foundation is laid when it is not you must endeavour to build him up But if you know him to dissemble I suppose you will rather help to lay the Foundation before you go any further But 2. If you can say as much to prove that I may not teach any but Disciples the observable commands of Christ in sensu activo that is do my best to teach them as I have done to prove that wicked men have no Title to the Sacraments which will warrant them Coram Deo to claim them you will do much towards the changing of my minde To the Tenth I answer This confusion marrs all I have oft told you unregenerate men are really in covenant as to their external engaging act and this they may break But doth it follow that they cannot violate their own promise unless God be actually obliged by promise to them To the Eleventh I will not stand now to search whether Judas was one of them that was bid Eat and Drink But supposing it granted it is most certain that he was commanded as much to take and feed on Christ by faith and that he was offered the Sacrament as a Sacrament that is a sealing and professing sign as I have before explained Now if he had so received it as it was offered and in the nature of a Sacrament as Christ bid him Take Eat Drink then certainly he had done it in faith And if he did not so as he did not he did not what he was commanded And therefore you cannot hence prove a Right in Judas by any grant to the separated sign
word which is now in force to us Arg. 5. According to the definition of most of our Divines the outward washing alone without inward Grace is not Baptism Therefore if God give them right to the washing without the Grace he gives them not right to Baptism but this is but ad hominem I do but superficially touch these things 1. Because as I said the Arguments to Mr. Blake are full 2. Because I am informed that all this is granted with those Divines with whom I have debated this point and that they confess that none but sound Believers have engaged God in actual Covenant to them but only in the common conditional Covenant and consequently it is not by Covenant grant that the notoriously ungodly have right to Baptism but by other waies which we are next to speak to I am informed that this is all granted but then I must add that they yield that such men have no true proper right at all for such proper right is of the nature of the debitum the dueness of the Benefit So that a man may thence lay claim to it as his due And the right between God and Man we receive only by Gods moral Gift which is by some promise or grant by his word or revelation of his Will de debito habendi for this dueness or right is a moral thing and must come by his moral act such as among men we call political or civil But mark how the other two sorts of right differ from this That which follows Gods Physical disposal by Providence gives a man no proper right of dueness but only makes it non injustum and I think not propeâ—l positively justum that he should possess it as if I see a man ready to dye for cold and cast a garment on him only these two things follow first that is is not unjust for him to possess it 2. That it is unjust for any other to deprive him of it but this is no dueness or if he have any proper right it is after the possession and not before And then the third sort of right which ariseth from a precept to others concerning the manner of their duty is properly no right as not giving a due or title to the Benefit but only it makes my act of application to be just and him to be the Object of a just Act not just because of his Title from a gift of God but from a precept to me so that as the three Instruments differ Gift or Covenant Natural disposal and Precept so do these three sorts of right differ the first only being debitum the second non injustum the third justum and the Subject of the third is but my act and not the person who is the Object It is just that I obey God and so do such an Act on him Having said thus much for preparation I shall anon speak more particularly to the two later sorts of right but first we shall touch briefly the third pretended title which some insist on of such Infants proper right to baptism The third was upon the account of their Ancestors true faith though the immediate Parents weee notoriously ungodly They that plead this title will not prove it good 2. I thus disprove it Agrum 1. If the Promise to the faithfull and their Seed to many generations doth necessarily suppose an uninterrupted succession of faithful Progenitors of that seed then that promise gives no right to the Infants of notoriously ungodly Parents But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent The Consequent I suppose to be manifested before the Antecedent I prove by these following Arguments 1. If the promise suppose not an uninterrupted succession of faithful Progenitors then by virtue of the Promise to Noah all the world have Right to baptism But the Consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent If they urge the words of the second Commandment it is certain that it is not a thousand generations since Noah This Question is commonly put to our Brethren in this case Where shall we stop and on what grounds shall we stop if it extend not to all the world and they answer variously One reverend Brother Mr. Blake on the Covenant pag. 140. saith He knows few that say the Predecessor gives right without the immediate Parent But all concur in a joint way to communicate a Covenant Interest This yields the necessity of a non-intercision Others say first out of Calvin and Ames Vbi non prorsus interciditur Christianismi professio ubi praesumuntur esse Christiani to which I answer If it be a profession of Christianity properly so called then the right may come by the immediate parent and there is no intercision But if it be in a profession equivocally so called that is such as is not a probable sign of the thing professed then I suppose I have proved that such a profession is indeed not a profession gives no title and such is that of every notorious ungodly parent 2. It is answered by others that it must be by some Ancestors alive that will undertake their education To which I reply then the Ancestor gives him not a right as an Ancestor but as an Vndertaker of which more anon though he be no fitter to be an Undertaker than another Others say that the children of Christians known or presumed to be such living or dead may baptized Repl. Then all the children under the Turks whose Ancestors were known Christians may be baptized and why not all the world when Noah and Adam were known to be in Covenant or all this Nation if they had been Heathens this hundred years because their Ancestors were justly presumed to be Christians Argum. 2. In the common sense of such a Covenant amongst men it would necessarily suppose an uninterrupted succession of faithfull Progenitors that make no forfeiture before any right can be conveyed to their issue therefore it must be so interpreted in our present case seeing we must not go from the known use or sense of words without some apparent reason whereof here is none that I see And the Antecedent is a known case If a Prince do convey certain priviledges Honors to a man and his Heirs and Posterity for ever this word certainly implies this supposition or condition that neither he nor any after him do make a forfeiture for if they turn Traytors the Covenant is broke the Grant is void and they cannot by that convey any such right to Posterity Argum. 3. If the Promise aforesaid did not imply a necessary non-interruption of faithfull Progenitors then the Promise and threatning could not be verified but the Consequent is not to be admitted therefore the Consequence is plain in that as the Promise is to many generations of those that love God and keep his Commandments so the Threatning is that he will visit the sins of the Fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of c. Exod. 20.34 where God