the sense they are not agreed among themselves Some of them as is said would have Baptism only necessarily to admit Infants into the visible Church and place them under Government and ordinances and give them ex opere operato a certain preparatory grace Some of them will have it to imprint an indelible Character they know not what and to give them true Sanctification which they call justification by inherent grace Some of them affirm that as to Infant-Baptism the Council of Trent hath not defined whether it justifie or not and therefore it is not de fide And Accordingly some of them make true faith pre-requisite in the Parents and some of them make a certain congruous disposition Meritum de congruo to be pre-requisite but wherein that congruous Merit must consist they know not or are not yet agreed Commonly its thought to be in a fides informis or bare Assent Which Mr. Blake calls a dogmatical Faith conjunct with a reverent esteem of the Sacraments and a consent to become members of the Catholike Church and to be under their Government and use the Ordinances Or a consent in the Parent that the child do these And for the reformed Churches it is past all question by their constant practice that they require the Profession of a saving Christian Faith and take not up with any lower The Practice of the Church of England till the late change may be seen in the Common-prayer-Book wherein all that is forementioned is required The Judgement of the present Guides of our Churches as to the most is easie to be known by the Conclusions of the late Assembly at Westminster In the larger Catechism they say baptism is not to be administred to any that are out of the visible Church and so strangers to the Covenant of promise till they profess their Faith in Christ and obedience to him but Infants descending from Parents either both or but one of them professing faith in Christ obedience to him are in that respect within the covenant and to be baptized Here you may see whom they take to be of the visible Church and in that respect within the covenant 1. The words professing faith in Christ if they were alone do signifie a justifying faith profest For though to believe in Christ may sometime signifie a lower kind of Faith yet analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato 2. But that there may be no doubt of their meaning they add the necessity also of a profession of Obedience to Christ to shew that it is the working faith which must be profest And it is not only a Promise of Obedience for some distant futurity but the Profession of it which they make necessary And I conceive that he that professeth faith in Christ and obedience to him professeth that which will prove saving if he have but what he professeth The same they say in their confesâ—ion of Faith Cap 28. And again in the shorter Catechism Profession of Faith in Christ and obedience to him is the thing required In the Directory also they tell us that Baptism is a seal of the Covenant of Grace of our ingraffing into Christ and of our Vnion with him of remission of sin Regeneration Adoption and Eternal Life that the water in Baptism representeth and signifieth both the blood of Christ which taketh away all guilt of sin original and actual and the sanctifying vertue of the spirit of Christ against the dominion of sin and corruption of our sinful nature That baptizing or sprinkling and washing with water signifieth the cleansing from sin c. That the promise is made to believers and their seed c. And they mean no doubt the promise of the foresaid special mercies for even Mr. Blake himself doth once deny any promise of baptism to be made to the Infants that he pleadeth for And the promise of Justification Adoption c. is made to no believers but those that have justifying faith otherwise than as it is barely offered and so it is to Infidels also They add also in the same place that All who are bapâ—ized in the name of Christ do renounce and by their baptism are bound to fight against the Devil the World and the flesh All this is further manifest in our daily administration of Baptism I never heard any man baptize an Infant but upon the Parents or Susceptors or Offerers Profession of a justifying faith Nor do I believe that Mr. Blake himself doth baptize any otherwise though he dispute against this and for another Baptism The grounds of my conjecture are 1. Because I suppose he is loth to be so singular as to forsake the course of the Church in all ages And therefore I conjecture that he requireth them to profess that they believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and that they renounce the world the Flesh and the Devil 2. Because he so often professeth that he taketh the baptized to be in covenant with God and that this covenant is by them entered in baptism he saith that he knoweth but of one Covenant and that is the covenant of saving grace and that they are presently obliged debetur quovis tempore and therefore it is not only for a distant futurity that they engage themselves And if this be so it is past doubt that they profess a saving faith For the Gospel hath two parts 1. the Narrative or Historie of Christs person and sufferings resurrection c. 2. and the offer of Christ and life to sinners Accordingly Faith hath two parts 1. the Assent to the History or to the truth of the Christian Doctrine and this Mr. Blake maintaineth to be necessary and 2. Consent to the offer And this is called the Receiving of Christ And this is our Internal covenanting which Mr. Blake confesseth necessary For the covenanting of the Heart is this very consent with a resolution for future duty and the covenanting of the mouth is the Expression or Profession of this Consent with a promise of the necessary consequent duty So that though Mr Blake do say pag. 171. that â—ustifying Faith is with him the thing promised and do thrust from him the imputation of such an egregious piece of affâ—cted non-sense as to say that justifying faith is a promise Yet it is not only all the sense that I have of the nature of justifying faith that iâ— is an Assent to the Truth of the Gospel with a consent to the offer or heart-promise to be Christs but it must also be his own sense though disaffected or else he must palpably contradict himself There being no other internal entering or accepting the Covenant or Offer of Grace but by that consent and heart promise 3. And I must also conjecture this because we even now found Mr. Blake denying that ever he denied the necessity of the Profession of a saving faith to baptism But if in my conjectures I be mistaken in Mr. Blakes practice I must say
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
credere in Dominum nostrum credimus Filium Dei mihi quoque esse Dominum me quoque esse ejus subditum h. e. me quoque ejus sanguine esse redemptum servari perpetuò ac proinde me obligatum ei esse ad gratitudinem Dominium ejus mihi esse salutare me servari ab eo tanquam possessionem charissimam Pag. 229. Quid est credere in Christum crucifixum est credere Christum pro me factum esse maledictioni obnoxium ut me ab ea liberaret So Pag. 240. to the Question Quid est credere in Christum mortuum◠he gives more largely the like Answer And Pag 268. he gives the like answer to the Question Quid est credere in Jesum Cristum qui ascendit in coelum I am loth to weary my self others with citing Testimonies in a known case It s well known that this or to this purpose is the common Exposition of the Protestants of the Creed and Baptismal Profession and that they maintain it against the Papists to be true saving faith that is meant in the words I believe in God the Father in Jesus Christ in the holy Ghost I doubt not to cite forty forty more to prove this when any shall shew me that it will be worth the labor Yet I must say that I approve not fully of some of their descriptions of justifying or saving faith which they hereupon give in but yet they truly maintain that it meaneth saving faith I believe and if they had but put the Wills Consent to the severall Articles and Relations and works of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and our Affiance instead of a perswasion that they are ours c. I should have yielded to their descriptions I conclude then that believing in or on God the Father Son and Holy Ghost is an Act of the Will as well as of the Understanding and is saving faith And therefore all that profess this profess saving faith But all that will be baptized must profess this therefore 3. It is agreed by all Divines that I know Protestants and Papists that to believe in the Trinity is not only to believe in Gods Essence or the three Persons but also the Relations and great operations of each person for us As to believe in God the Father is to believe in him as our Creator and Soveraign Lord and chief Good To believe in Jesus Christ Is to believe in him as Redeemer and Saviour To believe in the Holy Ghost is to believe in him as a Sanctifier and as the great Witness and Agent of Christ. Now it is most certain that to Profess Assent and consent that God be my God Christ my Saviour the Holy Ghost my Sanctifier is to profess Saving Faith And bare Assent is not meant in the words believing in or on God as is proved by our Divines at large And if present consent be exprest saving Faith is exprest for no wicked man can truly consent that God shall be his God and chief good and Christ his Saviour to save him from sin it self as well as from punishment and the Holy Ghost his Sanctifier I may truly say according to that of Peter Martyr before cited that never any but a true believer that had Justifying Faith did truly say I believe in God but speak falsly in so saying To take God for his God is a thing that no man can truly do but those that are called effectually by his Saving Grace Argum. 3. The foregoing Argument was taken from the prerequisite Profession the next shall be taken from the very work it self viz. the Presenting and offering our selves to be baptized and willingly receiving baptism Thus If it be the very Nature or appointed Vse of the external part of Baptism it self yea essential to it to signifie and profes◠among other things the saving faith and Repentance of the Baptized being at age then true Baptism cannot go without such a Profession But the former is true Ergo so is the later The Antecedent which only requireth proof I prove thus 1. It is of the Instituted Nature of Baptism to be in general a Professing sign as well as an Engaging sign de futuro this I promise as granted by all Christians that I know of that have written of Baptism And then let us consider of the several parts of the sign or external Ordinance with the signification of each That it is essential to it to be significant and Obligatory on our part as well as on Gods part is commonly confessed And 1. The Minister doth baptize him into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and the party doth by himself or Parent consent thereto 1. Voluntarily offering himself to be so baptized and then 2. Voluntarily Receiving that Baptism And his offer of himself hereto goeth before the Ministers baptizing him and his Reception of that Baptism is Essential to it so that Baptism essentially containeth on his part a Signal Profession of consent to that which is meant in the form used by the Minister I baptize thee into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost And that is that God the Father Son and Holy Ghost be mine and I be theirs in the Relations in which they are offered in the Gospel to Mankind For all confess that it is a Covenant that is here Sealed and so a mutual consent which the Signs are Instituted by Christ to signifie Christ offereth himself to be Related to me as my Jesus Christ and by offering my self to Baptism and by voluntarily receiving it I do actually profess my Acceptance of his Offer that is of himself so offered God the Father offereth himself to be my God reconciled in Christ and so my chief good and by voluntary receiving Baptism I do signally profess my Acceptance of him so offered The Holy Ghost is offered to be my Sanctifier and Guide and by voluntary Reception of baptism into his Name I do signally profess my Acceptance of him so offered Of all which I shall say more anon And if this be not the Faith which is Justifying and saving then I know not what is yea I may boldly say then there is none such so that it it a most clear case that baptism as baptism according to it s Instituted Nature and use doth contain the Persons actual signal Profession of present Assent to the truth of the Gospel and Acceptance of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as therein offered And it containeth as our Divines commonly maintain an actual signal Profession that we there presently consecrate or Devote or Dedicate our selves to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost in the foresaid Relations 2. Another part of Baptism is the Ministers washing the Person and the Person first offering himself to be washed and after actually receiving it doth thereby signally profess his consent Now this washing doth essentially signifie our washing from our former filth of sin together with the guilt our putting off the old
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
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
this cannot be his sense For the man is not fradulent and besides his following arguing sheweth the contrary But then I confess that arguing amazeth me again He will prove that he is for the necessity of the profession of a justifying faith to Baptism because he is for the necessity of a Dogmatical faith and that faith must be profess Wonderful Doth he make a justifying and a Dogmatical faith all one No he constantly distinguisheth and opposeth them How then doth he prove that he asserteth the necessity of the profession of a justifying faith because he asserteth the necessity of a professed Dogmatical faith Reader I am at a loss I dare not say Mr. Blake is so perhaps he understands himself make thy best on 't for I can make nothing on 't or worse then nothing But if really he will be of this mind that the Reality of a dogmatical faith is necessary and the profession of a justifying faith I shall not only thank him for giving quiet profession to the truth but I will give him some back again and will come my self a beg lower then he and will affirm that we must give them the Sacraments that profess a saving faith though they have not so much as the Reality of a Dogmatical faith Yet Reader if thou think that there is any parcel of the cause which Mr. Blake doth not expresly give up after all his labour adjoin his words p. 124. and rest satisfied so that I conceit no promise of these Ordinances made to such a faith but an actual investiture of every such believer in them I have made the best enquiry I can into Mr. Blake's sense and I cannot find any reasonable footing for a man to fix upon if we once forsake our present hold and say that it is a profession of some other faith short of that which justifyeth which is the title to the Sacraments For as no man can prove out of Scripture then what faith it must be but we shall there be at a loss so whatever he assert we have evidence enough to prove it insufficient A Real Dogmatical faith cannot be the title For then the Baptizer must know the heart The profession of a bare Dogmatical faith or assent cannot be it For then he that hath the faith of Devils persecutors of Christ and such as are supposed to sin against the Holy Ghost should have title Some consent therefore of the will there must be But to what if not to have Christ as he is offered who can tell A consent to be externally Baptized will not serve A consent to Baptism as Baptism comprizeth saving faith A consent to be a named Christian and to live among them may be without any profession of Christianity No man can tell where to fix nor what we must consent to to procure a Title if once we forsake the present ground If any man will give us yet a more exact Description of a faith short of justifying entitling to Baptism and the Lords Supper I shall be willing to examine it For hitherto I cannot see where I should set my foot if I should leave the ground I stand on I now come to examine the Arguments that are brought for the contrary opinion And I shall begin with Mr. Blake's and then proceed to some which others insist upon In his Treâ—t of Sacr. pag. 161. Mr. Blake beginneth some as he calleth them Additional Arguments that a faith short of that which justifieth gives title to Baptism ARGUMENT I. Mr. Blake They that have right in the sight of God to many and great Priviledges of his gift have a right in his sight to the first and leading Priviledges this I think cannot be denied having a right to those that follow they have right to those that lead If any had in the time of the Law right to the Passeover they had right to Circumcision and if any now have right to the Lords Supper they have right to Baptism But those of a faith that is short of that which â—ustifies have right to many and great Priviledges in the sight of God This is clear from the Apostle Rom. 3.1 The Jew outwardly where Circumcision of heart was wanting had every way much benefit and advantage he had therefore right to Circumcision and those with him that are short of a faith that justifies have right in the sight of God to Baptism ANSWER I. The question is not in the conclusion If all be granted it s nothing for Mr. Blake's cause or against mine It is not all one to conclude those that are short of a faith that â—ustifies have right and such a faith gives right or is the qualification condition or evidence of right either A man that is a Burgess of such a Corporation hath right to be Major But his Burgesship gives him not that right but his election A Frenchman hath right to the Crown of France but not because he is a Frenchman The Jew outwardly Rom. 3. had not his right by a faith short of justifying But he had first an actual abode among Ordinances and the offers of Grace and helps to salvation by free providentiall disposal of mercy 2. The claim that he made to Church-priviledges before men must be upon his Professing of saving faith viz. That he took the Lord only for his God and believed in him according to the tenor of the Promise and not upon the having or Professing of a faith of another Species This answer sufficeth as to the present controversie But because Mr. Blake doth seem also to intend these Arguments to the following controversie I shall briefly enervate them as to both that I may not be put to go over them again when I come to that controversie 2. I deny that Baptism is the first and leading Priviledge of Gods gifts It is a great Priviledge to have the Gospel preached to them to have pardon conditionally offered them that is if they will accept of Christ to be converted and made a true believer to be born of Christian Parents c. These and more are Priviledges and before baptism 3. I distinguish at large of the term Right in my Apologie Here let it suffice to say 1. Right is properly so called which in this case must arise from a promise or proper gift 2. Or it is Analogically so called which ariseth 1. indirectly from Gods command to the Parent Priest Pastor c. to do this for all that require it upon a profession of true faith 2. Or from bare permission or providential disposal 4. I distinguish also the Jews case from ours They had some promise of a continuance of Ordinances among them though not for perpetuity yet for a long time which no Church on earth hath now 5. And now I answer to the Minor 1. An Analogical improper right resulting from permission and a command to Ministers to Baptize all that upon such a profession require Baptism this I ever granted to all that profess saving
faith 2. But a proper right from promise or proper gift which may warrant them to claim or require the thing from God or man this I deny to any but true believers and their seed They may not lawfully require it though we must give it them if they do require it upon such a profession 3. But without a profession of saving faith they may neither require it nor we give it if they do require it whatever other short faith they have or profess 4. Thus also the Case was with the Jews allowing the difference made by the foresaid peculiar Promise to them ARGUMENT II. Mr Blake Those that are a People by Gods gracious dispensation nigh to God comparative to others have right in the sight of God to visible admittance to this more near relation This I think is clear men have right to be admitted to their right But those that come short of Justifying faith are a people by Gods gracious dispensations nigh unto God comparative to others this is plain in the whole visible Nation of the Jews as appears Deut. 4 7. Psal. 147.19 and 148.14 Those therefore that are short of Justifying faith have right in the sight of God to admission to this nearer relation ANSWER The Jews were nigher to God than other people 1. In that they had the offers of Grace which other people had not 2. And many great Deliverances and temporal priviledges which others had not Both these Infidels and Heathens may now have and therefore they prove no Right to Baptism 3. They were nigher by some promises peculiar to that Nation which is nothing to us 4. They were nigher by their Consent to the offers of Grace and the Covenant of the Lord which was proper in sincerity to the sanctified 5. And by their profession of Consent and external engaging themselves to the Lord whether they had inwardly faith or not Now to the Major I grant it but add that the three first sorts of Nearness give not right to Baptism All admission to near Relation comparatively to others is not by Circumcision or Baptism But it is only a Nearness in the two last senses that are questionable as to this And I have before shewd in what sense true Consent to the Covenant gives right and in what sense an outward profession of Consent gives right and that your common faith gives none in either sense Lastly if your conclusion were granted it s nothing to our question For as is said all admission to near relation is not by baptism One Infidel may be nearer God and the Kingdom of Heaven then another and yet 〈◊〉 be baptizable for all that ARGUMENT III. Mr. Blake Those that God ordinarily calls his People and owns as his openly avouching himself to be their God have right in the sight of God to the signs and cognizance of his People and are to have admission into the society and Fellowship of his People This is plaâ—n if God in Covenant will own servants then his stewards may open the door to them if he will own sheep his servants doubtless may mark them But God owns all in visible communion though short of faith that is Justifying as his People and openly avouches himself to be their God as in abundant places of Scriture is evident See Deut. 26.18 These have therefore right to the signs and cognizances of his people to admission into the Society and Fellowship of his People ANSWER 1. To the Major with the fore-mentioned distinction of Right applyed as before I grant it 2. To the Minor I say God owneth them as his people by internal consent and covenanting who indeed are so and he owneth them as his People by outward Covenanting or Expression or Profession of consent who are such But those that have neither of these but only profess some shorter faith or consent to some other Covenant or but part of this he will not own in either relation nor would have them taken into the Communion of his Church Nor do you prove any such thing for Deut. 26.18 is so much against you that I marvel you were not troubled at the citing of it For that Text alone is enough to confute all your pompous allegations out of the Old Testament from the Church state of the Jews The words are Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walk in his waies and to keep his Statutes and his Commandments and his Judgements and to hearken to his voice And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people c. Do you think that they that in heart consent that the Lord be their God and to walk in his waies c. have not saving faith Then there was no such thing then on the earth And if they had such faith who sincerely consented then they Professed such faith that Professed such consent And the word avouching sheweth that it was present profession and not only a promise for some distant futurity This Argument therefore is but like the rest ARGUMENT IV. Mr. Blake Those whom the Spirit of God ordinarily calls by the name of Circumcision they had a right in Gods sight to Circumcision and those of like condition have like right to baptism This I think is clear the Spirit of God doth not mis-name doth not nick-name nor ordinarily at least give equivocal names But men short of Justifying faith are called by the Spirit of God by the name of Circumcision as needs no proof Christ was a Minister of the Circumcision Rom 15.8 And he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Those then of a faith short of that which is Justifying have right in the sight of God to Baptism ANSWER 1. I have no need to deny the Major but it is not sound for they are called the Circumcision i. e. the Circumcised because they were actually Circumcised and not because that all that were so had right to it 2. To the Minor I grant it but with this note that it is not because of their short faith that they were to be circumcised but upon the Parents or their own profession and sincere consent to the Covenant The Conclusion again containeth not your Thesis There 's nothing in it about giving title or any thing of necessary connexion ARGUMENT V. Mr. Blake Those that are the servant of God whom God owns as his servants have right in his sight to be received into his house and to be entitled to the Priviledges of his Church This we think should not be denyed and that God will take it ill if any shall deny it But men short of that faith which Justifies are owned of God as his servants as is clear Lev. 25.41 42. There every Israelite that was sold to any of the Children of Israel and his Children are called of God his servants and that as Israelites of which a great part were void of that faith which Justifies Therefore those that are short of faith
the Gift of the Holy Ghost to it as to Infants And yet as long as they put all duly baptized both Infants and Adult into a state of salvation it matters not as to our question whether Infants had habitual Grace And yet Mr. Graker hath brought so many proofs out of the mounments of Antiquity even for this also that the Fathers uno ore took all the Baptized to be regenerate or renewed by inherent grace that when his Amanuensis had transcribed them he fâ—und them near four times as big as his whole Book besides and the very naming of the Auâ—hors and Books and Pages takes up near ten or eleven Pages Stâ—iâ—tur in Davenaâ—â— Epist. pa. 53. to the end of 63. He begins with Justin â—arry Irenaeu c. I will not so much as trouble the Râ—ader to name the Authors seeing he may there have them with the places together And lest Mâ— Blake should say that it is but common sanctification which they assert he may there see the placeâ— qâ—oâ—ed where â—hey aâ—cribe to all the dulâ— baptized peccatorum remissionem mentis illumiâ—ationem vâ—ii sordiumque ablutionem expurgationem animae purgationem purificatinem emaculationem totius hominis verant integram Circumcisionem refectionem renovationem recreatioâ—eÌ„â—nnovâ—tionem animâ—tionem emundationem sanctificationem internam reformationeÌ„ ad divinaÌ„ imagineÌ„ similitudineÌ„ restitutioneÌ„ regenerationeÌ„ geâ—erationis nativae correctioâ—eÌ„ acâ—reparationeÌ„ veteriâ— hominis mortem sepulturam noviâ—nativitatem vetustatis abstersionem exutum despoliatioâ—em dâ—positionem vitii omnis evomitionem peccati interfectionem criminum mortem sepulturam viâ—tutis vitam Spiritus sancti infusionem gratiae coelestis consecutionem hominis mentis immutationem in melius transformationem Hinc Baptismum appellant Vndam genitalem aquam salutarem rorem purificum sanativum vivificum sanctificumq lavacrum Et Sacramentum hoc asserunt peccatis exuere peccata expurgare spiritualem lepram auferre gratiae ac virtutum Spiritus sancti donis atque primitiis induere vim generativam habere Dei siitos generare corpus peccuti destruere vertutem vitalem indere gratiam spiritualem conferre atque infundere divinam imaginem instaurare novam facere massam condere creaturam dealbare nive candidiorem facere purum justum sanctum novum facere hominem peccatum radicitus evellere justitiam sanctitamque tribuere animae sordes maculasque abluere ulcera morbosque sanare aestus sedare febres extinguere putredines exuere vitia exinanire oculos aperire aures reserare vigorem dare vires addere formam floremq Deo dignum conciliare in vitam primordialem animam restituere textum novum contexere animas reparare viventes spiritu informatas utì aqua olim reptilia producere esse baptizâ— to quod matrix Embryoni eo modo effigiare quo infans in utero essingitur pari modo ex aqua resingere reficere quo ex terra primó fingebatur refundere refingere prout statua solet tingere ut lanum purpurâ purgare emollire fulgidum facere ut ignis ferrum charactereÌ„ effigiemque imprâ—mereâ—ut cerae sigillum vitium solvere absumere peccata exurere ut ignis ceram homineÌ„ terreum ut terraÌ„ metallicaÌ„ in auruÌ„ transmutare crassos animales in coelestes spirituales transformare infantiam juventutem revocare puritati originali restituere vel eâ etiam praestantiorem splendidiorem reddere Typos baptismatis affirmant fuisse Naaminis purgationem Pharaonis submersionem Cataclysum Noathicum piscinaÌ„ BethesdicaÌ„ aquatilium creationem formationem protoplasti I have recited all these terms Mr. Gataker telleth you where to find them all least Mr. Blake should not be able to find any one that certainly signifieth saving Grace if we named not all For though he abhorreth to impute equivocation to the Scripture as I do yet he sticks not to do it much more where it serveth his turn Regeneration Renovation Adoption Sanctification Disciples and I doubt Justification and what not are all equivocal terms with him in Scripture if I can understand him and so is the Church the body of Christ and many such like Perhaps therefore it will not move him that Mr. Gataker nexe addeth pag. 63. De baptismo denique exponunt illas sacras Scripturea Periochas Psal. 34.5 juxta Graec. Ver. Psal. 103.5 Isa. 1.16 Ezek. 36.25 26. Psal. 51.10 Joh. 1.13 3.5 6. Rom. 6.3 6. 1 Cor. 6.11 Gal. 3.27 Ephe. 4.22 24. 5.26 Col. 2.11 13. Tit. 3.5 Heb. 6 4 10.22 Quae loca IlluminationeÌ„ purificationem renascentiam regenerationem refectionem sanctificationem mortificationem vivisicationem cordis renovationem imaginis restaurationem spiritus infusionem hominem veterem exutum crucifixum abolitum hominem novum Christum ipsum indutum loquuntur nec aut ad solam reatus amotionem possunt accommodari aut de ea sola saltem ab ullo opinor unquam interprete sunt exposita Constat itaque Patres antiquos tam Regenerationem propriè dictam quae in hominis renovatione interná consistit quà m peccati sive originalis sive actualis remissionem sacramento isti tribuisse Constat ex iis quae suprà indicavimus aevi itideÌ„ inferioris Scriptores plerosque cùm in eadem sententia fuisse tum in candeÌ„ menteÌ„ patruÌ„ priscorum dicta cepisse So far Gataker If all these terms be equivocal and none of them signifying saving Grace we must even give up the use or certainty of Language But it may possibly be Objected that this was the Fathers error who ascribed too much to Baptism Answ. What ever they did in that it proveth the point in hand and sheweth us what persons the baptized and the visible Church were taken for by the Fathers Object But doth it not rather shew that saving Faith was not presupposed because they supposed that Baptism did give the spirit and sanctification and therefore found not men sanctified before Answ. 1. It is undeniable that they took all that were duly baptized to be presently in a state of salvation without any delay and therefore they did not take Baptism as a common Ordinance to lead men up to the use of other Church Ordinances as the Supper c. which is also common to the notoriously ungodly and so to saving grace 2. And if the â—atholike Church hath in all ages thus annexed saving Grace to Baptism and made any common faith the condition qualifying the person for this Baptism then it would be plain that they all affixed saving Grace to the preparation of common Grace and so the Catholike Church hath been Pelagian which he that shall affirm will do that for the Pelagian Cause which will better please the Jesuites than any considerate Reformed Divines It is therefore not to be doubted oâ— but that it was some Antecedent special Grace to which they thus confidently affixed other saving Grace Which will the more appear in that Austine himself and those that followed him against the
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
infidelity and doubting and have so much Belief of the truth of Scripture as prevaileth with them to resolve to trust their everlasting happiness only on that bottom though with the forsaking of all earthly things yet are they far short of a full assurance or certainty of the truth of the Gospel and are principally in doubt of the sincerity of this act of their faith Now I would know what Mr. Blake would have these Godly persons do that are not assured of their Dogmatical faith but are oft ready to say I shall one day perish by this Unbelief If he would have them receive the Sacraments without assurance of a Dogmatical faith we have reason to think that they may receive them without assurance of a justifying faith though we make this the condition of their Title as they do the other 3. It is a great controversie among the Reformed Divines whether an unconverted man can have that faith which we call Dogmatical I know but two or three Divines to be of Mr. Blake's opinion though its like enough there may be more And one of them thinks that the nature of justifying faith lieth only in Assent another I have heard in conference maintain that wicked men or the unconverted do not indeed Believe God nor that the word of God is true And if this be so then sure a Dogmatical faith is a justifying faith and he that must be sure of the one must be sure of the other when it is not really another but the same or an essential part of the same This also is the judgement of many Protestant Divines as Bishop Downam Camero and his followers and many more viz. that faith lieth in Assent or a perswasion of the truth of the word and the common opinion of Protestants is that this Assent is one essential part of justifying faith and that it is in the understanding as well as the will I remember scarce any of note besides Amesius that placeth it in the will only and make the act of the Intellect to be but Integral or preparatory And if there be any such thing as Grace or Holiness and Rectitude in the Intellect I do not yet conceive wherein it can consist if not in Light procuring knowledge of and Assent to the truth And how much of this jure vel injuria Mr. Blake yields to the unregenerate see him on sacr pag. 179. As in these words And therefore though the wicked match the Regenerate in assent in their understandings it will not follow that their understandings therefore are truly sanctified I am far from believing that the wicked do match the Regenerate in assent in their understandings But if he can prove this I would fain know what the Rectitude or Sanctity of the understanding is seeing he supposeth that this is not it He that with a deep habitual assent doth Believe that God is the chief good and that for him and that Heaven is more desirable than earth and that there is no salvation but by Christ received as our Priest Prophet and King c. I think he hath a sanctified understanding or else I know not who hath nor what it is But in such great points as this if Mr. Blake have made any new discovery of the nature of sanctity or rectitude in the intellect as a thing differing from assent he might have dealt charitably to have told us what it is and not to have left the world at a loss 4. And I still think that at best if the wicked have a true Dogmatical Belief of the essentials of Religion it is as hard or harder for them to attain assurance of the truth of that Dogmatical Belief in its kinde as it is for the Regenerate to attain assurance of the truth of saving faith in its kind Therefore if the wicked may lawfully claim a Right in both Sacraments without assurance that they are sincere in their kind of faith why may not the Godly claim a Right without assurance of sincerity in their kind of faith And if Mr. Blake will say that neither assurance nor perswasion that we have either the one or the other is necessary to a claim or Right but only a promise of them for the future then Heathens and Infidels have right and may lay a claim For they can promise to be Christians and yet remain Heathens Obj. 3. If you take none to have such a right as may warrant their claim and receiving but only sound Believers then you make election and the covenant and seals to by commensurate which is not to be done Answ. The terms are ambiguous Supposing that we understand each other as to the sence of the word Election I say of the word Covenant that it may mean three differing things 1. If you mean the conditional promise of Christ and life to all that will Believe I say that this is not commensurate with Election For as to the tenor it belongs to all the world and as to the promulgation to all that hear it This is sometime called a covenant in the sense as all Divine constitutions be about our life and sometime as it is the offer of a mutual covenant and sometime as it is seemingly accepted But still God is but conditionally obliged And this is no sufficient Title to the seal For then it were due to open Infidels if not to all 2. If by the word Covenant you mean mans own promise to God or consent to his offer so I say it is either sincere or not sincere Sincere consent to Gods offer is commensurate with election unless you can prove that such fall away totally and finally But unsincere consent as when it only to half the offer or unsincere promising with the tongue without the sincere consent of the heart is not commensurate with election nor doth it warrant the Hypocrite to claim the Sacraments though it may warrant me to give them if he claim them 3. If by the Covenant you mean Gods actual obligation which followeth mans acceptance which is the performance of the condition of Gods promise then I say it is commensurate with election unless you could prove the foresaid doctrine of Apostacy For when God hath promised us Christ and life on condition of our acceptance or consent and we hereupon do sincerely consent then Gods promise doth induce on him as we may speak after our manner an actual obligation and give us an actual Right to the benefits and is equivalent as to that present benefit to an absolute promise And it is only this that will warrant our claim to any of the benefits Obj. 4. Saith Mr. Blake pag. 121. And whereas he so peremptorily determines that though wicked men oblige themselves yet God still remaineth disobliged let him consider whether God be not some way obliged to all that he voucheth to be his people If this be denyed there will be found no great happiness to a people to have the Lord for their God But God avoucheth
for my learning what advantage or profit a dead corps is in capacity to enjoy I think none at all but these have much every way Ans. Thus you argue or you say nothing If unregenerate Saints Church-members c have much advantage and a corps have no advantage then they are not Equivocally called Saints Church-members c. as a corps is called a man But c. The consequence is not only false but too gross Advantage or disadvantage are nothing to the nature of Equivocals 2. In its kinde a Corps may have advantage It may be stuck with flowers perfumed emblamed and kept from stinking as ungodly men are by their common Gifts for the sake of those with whom they do converse 3. An Ape is capable of advantage and yet if you call him a man it is a more Catachresticall Equivocation than to call a corps so An embryo or rude beginings of a mans body before it receive the soul it is capable of advanatage in order to Manhood and yet is but Equivocally called a man Mr. Blake If such Equivocation be found in the word Saint then the like is to be affirmed of the word Believer and Believers having their denomination from their faith that is equivocall in like manner and so the common Division of faith into Dogmatical or Historical temporary miraculous and justifying is but a Division of an Aequivocum in sua Aequivocata which I should think no man should affirm much less Mr. Baxter who makes common and special grace to differ only gradually and then as cold in a remiss degree may grow to that which is intense so one Aequivocatum may rise up to the Nature of another animal terrestre may become Sydus Coeleste Ans. 1. It s no good consequence because the word Saint is Equivocal therefore the word Believer is so 2. Our dispute is not about the sence of the word Faith or Believer in General but about the Christian Faith in special from whence a man is to be properly called a Christian and upon the profession whereof he is to be baptized for I told you once already that as Faith is taken in General so your lower sort of faith is truly and properly Faith and so is believing in Mahomet To distinguish Faith into Divine and Humane and into Christian and Mahometan c is not aequivoci in sua aequivocata divisio But to distinguish the Christian Faith which entituleth to Baptism into saving Faith and that which is short of it is aequivoci in sua aequivocata 3. If you thought No man had been guilty of this conceit whether that thought do more disparage the said assertion or your self I must not be judge but I take it as if you had said I thought no man had written against Bellarmines definition of the Church 4. As to your No Man much less Mr. Baxter as I know not the reason of your thought unless you indeed take me not only to be No Man but to be somewhat distinct both from a man and no man so I am as little satisfied with the Reason which you alledg For 1. It is a Gross untruth unworthy a Divine and a Brother that I hold common and special Grace to differ only gradually And that this should be deliberately published even after I had given the world in print so full an account of the mistake of this accusation from another once and again this is yet less ingenuous and doth but tell us what we must expect from Brethren when passion is predominant I never affirmed any more than this that there is a Moral specifick difference between special and common Graces founded in a Natural Gradual difference I manifested in print that Dr. Kendall who writeth against me on this occasion doth not only say the same thing but profess that others differ not from me and resolveth his dispute into a reprehension of me for pretending a difference Yet after all these writings my reverend Brother Mr. Blake sticks not to affirm to this and future Ages in print that I hold Only a Gradual difference without any more ado And of such dealing I may say his Book is too full 5. Your reason is no reason I hope you think not either that your Animal terrestâ—e Sydus caeleste differ but Gradually nor yet that there are no Equivocals that differ only in Natural degrees who knows not that in many hundred cases a Degree may vary the species Mr. Blake If Juda's faith was only Equivocal then the unclean spirits were Equivocal likewise Ans. A consequence as well fortified with proof of Reason as much more of your book is Yet I take the boldness to deny it Mr. Blake I shall never believe that an Equivocal faith can cast out a reall devil Answ. 1. You are not able to make good your word for you have not wholly the Command of your own belief I am as confident that you will believe it 2. But if you will not that 's no good argument to us that the thing is false 3. An Equivocal faith is a Real faith why then may it not cast out a Real Devil that is be a Causa sine qua non for no faith doth properly effect it I hope you will believe that the finger of God can cast out a real devil and yet I hope you think that Gods Power is but Equivocally called His finger Mr. Blake The Apostle tells us of Faith to the removal of mountaines void of Charity if this were Equivocal faith those must be Equivocal mountaines Still the like proof you may as well say If it be Equivocally called Gods finger then it must Equivocally be called a devil that is ejected We need better proof Mr. Blake pag. 153. bringeth Du-Plessis Wollebius Gomarrus Hudson Paraeus Ames saying that good and bad are in the visible Church Ans. Have you to do with any man that denyeth it But you know they distinguish between In the Church and Of the Church and 2. that they Judge not of the visible as you do And therefore you do but fraudenly pag. 156. make it my opinion as joyning with Bellarmines unjust charge that the visible Church is no true Church but Equivocally so called and that there are two Churches c. Do but you quit your self of the charge of making two Churches as well as all and we shall do well enough for that And for the other part of your charge our Divines say that there are in the visible Church 1. those that belong to it as Invisible 2 hypocrites and reprobates the former say they are properly members of the Church in its proper sense the latter are only seeming members and the Church visible is called a Church in respect to the former And the visible is denominated but from an Accidental and not the essential form Their words before cited shew this Mr. Blake And whereas Mr. Baxter saith that other Divines generally plead that Hypocrites are not true members of the universal Church
your own Party that are in all things of your own Opinions If these be your grounds you are utterly schismatical in your foundations though you should actually get all the Christians in Europe to be of your minde O! me thinks men that are humble as all are that shall be saved should be so far acquainted with the weakness of their understandings as to have meaner thoughts of them and not to make them the Standard of the Churches Judgement or the Center of its Peace There 's no two men of you all of one minde in all things among your selves But I confess your faults excuse not mine and I am much too blame if I be not willing to hear of them reform them But I can do nothing against the truth it is not in my power to be of all mens minds when they are of so many and inconsistent If I agree with some Reverend Brethren it must displease the rest by disagreeing from them And therefore I have long resolved to study to please God who may be pleased instead of men and do my best to find out the Truth and entertain it and obey it as far as I can understand it and to propound it to others and leave it to God and them whether it shall be received or not And for my self to be heartily thankful to any that will help me to know more and deliver me from any Error that I am in The Differences that these Brethren have blamed me for are in these three points or four 1. About the Interest of Faith Repentance and other Graces in our Justification Of this I have not heard from any Brother that yet he is unsatisfied since I published my Confession save what is in an Epistle to the Sermons on Iohn 17. to which I have long ago prepared an Answer and the by-exceptions answered in this Book 2. About proving Christianity by Argument of which I have heard from none since I published my Papers against Infidelity 3. About the Universality of Redemption and 4. About the Controversies of this Book For the former of these last I find a Reverend Learned man endeavouring to load me with some note of Singularity I mean D. Ludovicus Molinaeus in his Preface to his Paraenesis ad aedificatores Imperii in Imperio a Book that hath much Learning and more Truth then is fairly used the face of it being writhen to frown upon them that own it and Parties wronged even where Truth is defended though through the unhappiness of the Distinction oft clouded when it seems explicated and through I know not what the Controversie seldom truly stated This Learned man hath thought it meet for the disgracing Amyraldus by the smalness of his success to mention me thus as his only Proselyte in England Forsan eo consilio Amyraldus cudit suam Methodum ut Lutheranis subpalparet gratiam apud eos iniret sperans per eam Lutheranos reconciliatum iri Calvinistis sed reverâ dum falsam studet inire gratiam nulli parti eo nomine gratus est nec ulla parte haeret apud Lutheranos ut censet Calovius clarissimus Wittemberge Theologus nec de vincit sibi Anglos aut Belgas In Belgio enim nulli nisi Arminiano in Anglia uni Baxtero apprime placet ejus Methodus And three leaves after Sed in solatium DallÄ™o ut Amyraldus Baxterum Anglum sic DallÄ™ is Woodbrigium itidem Anglum peperit proselytam admiratorem It is an ungrateful task to answer a Writing whose Error is a multiplication of palpable Uâ—truths in matter of fact for they are usually more unwillingly heard of then committed But I shall lay these following considerations in the way of this Learned man where his conscience may find them 1. If in England Amyraldus Method do please uni Baxtero and yet Dallaeus have proselyted Woodbridge also and Amyraldus and Dallaeus Method be the same Quaer Whether Baxter and Woodbridge are not the same man 2. Qu. Whether this Learned man know the judgement of all England 3. I meet with so many of Amyraldus mind in the point of Universal Redemption that if I might judge of all the rest by those of my acquaintance I should conjecture that half the Divines in England are of that opinion 4. Is it not a thing famously known in England that this middle way of Universal Redemption hath been by Writing and Disputing and preaching maintained by as excellent Divines for Learning Judgement holiness and powerful Preaching as far as we can judge as ever England bred It s famously known that B p Vsher was for it that B p Davenant B p Carleton B p Hall Dr Ward Dr Goad Mr Balcanquall being all the Divines that were sent to the Synod of Dort from Brittain were for it and Davenant Hall and Ward have wrote for it that those holy renowned Preachers Dr Preston of which read Mr Tho. Ball in his life Dr Stoughton Mr Wil. Whately Mr Wil. Fenner M Iohn Ball Mr Ezek. Culverwâ—ll Mr Rich. Vines c. were for it And many yet living do ordinarily declare their judgment that way And are not these more then unus Baxterus An excellent Writing of Ioannes Beâ—gius to that end was lately translated here into English and published by Mr Mauritius Bohemus a Divine residing in Leicestershire 5. Is it not famously known that the Divines of Breme go this way and the Duke of Brandenburg's Divines that Wendeline complaineth to Spanhemius of it and that Ludovicus Crocius Mat Martinius and Iselburge besides the Brittish Divines gave it in as their judgement at the Synod of Dort so that the Synod hath nothing against it and nothing but what this unus Baxterus and all of his mind do readily subscribe to herein Nay is it not manifested that Dr Twiss himself hath frequently written for it 6. Can he that knows the Lutherane and Arminian doctrine believe both these that the Arminians in Belgia are pleased with Amyraldus Method and yet that nullâ parte haeret apud Lutheranos 7. Can he that hath read what Davenant Camero Amyraldus Lud. Crocius c. have written against the Arminians and what Grotius Tilenus and others of them have written against them be yet perswaded that the Arminians are pleased with Amyraldus Method any further then to be less dispeased with it then with some others 8. When Mr Woodbridge doth profess but that he is for Universal Redemption in Davenant's sense especially since he read Daile c. doth this Learned man well infer thence that he was Daile's proselyte when the contrary is intimated yea is the fatetur se nondum concoquentem Amyraldi Methodum true or false 9. When this unus Baxterus did write a Book for Universal Redemption in this middle sense before he ever saw either Amyraldus Davenant or any Writer except Dr Twiss for that way and was ready to publish it and stopt it on the coming forth of Amyraldus and was himself brought to this judgement
jus Ecclesiastiâ—um and in foro exteriori to be in the visible Church we deny it and he shall never be able to prove it And pag. 20. He hath the like And pag. 23 and 25. passiâ—o the like And pag 20.30 He saith Concl. 2. A serious sober outward Profession of the Faith and true Christian Religion together with a serious Profession of former sinfull courses a serious consideration of these things as such considered abstractâ—vely abstractions simplici from the work 〈◊〉 saving Grace and heart-conversion by true Repentance Faith is sufficient qualification in the Ecclesiastick Court to constitute a person sit matter to be received as a member of the visible Church accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Among these that are within If I be asked what I mean by a serious Profession I Answ. Such a Profession as hath in it at least a moral sincerity as Divines are wont to distinguish though happily not alwaies a â—upernatural sincerity i. e. that I may speak more plainly which is not openly discernably simulate histrionick scenical and hypocritical in that hypocrisie which is gross but all circumstances being considered by which ingenuity is estimate among men giving credit one to another there appears no reason why the man may not and ought not to be esteemed as to the matter to think and purpose as he speaketh from whatsoever habitual principle it proceedeth whether of saving Grace or Faith or of faith historical and conviction wrought by some common operation of the Spirit A man that hath such a Profession as this and desireth Church-Communion the Church ought to receive him as a member And all be it I deny not but where there is just or probable ground of suspition that the Profession hath simulation and fraudulent dealing under it as in one new come from an heretical Religion or who hath been before a Persecutor of the Faith and Professors thereof there may be a delay in prudence and time taken to try and prove if he dealeth seriously and ingenuously c. And in Page 150 speaking of my self he saith 1. The Learned Author and I are fully agreed upon the mater concerning the outward ground upon which persons are to be admitted and acknowledged members of the visible Church viz A serious Profession of the faith including a Profession of subjection to the commands and Ordinances of Christ is sufficient for this and that persons making this Profession are without delay or searching for tryal and Discoveries of their heart-conversion to be admitted I do heartily approve his weighty Exhortation subjoyned But I cannot yet agree with him in this that men are not to be received into the visible Church but under the notion of true Believers and positively judged to be such though but probably And Pag. 151. I confess also that were a mans outward carriage and way such as did discover him to be an unregenerate man he were not to be received into the fellowship of the visible Church but wiâ—hall I say He were not to be debarred or not received not upon the account of non-Regeneration or upon that carriage considered under this formality and reduplication as a â—â—gn and discovery of non Regeneration but materially as being contrary to the very outward profession of Faith My reason is because I conceive it is Gods revealed Will in his Word that men be received into the visible Church that they may be regenerate and converted and that the Ministerial dispensation of the Ordinances are by Gods revealed will set up in the Church to be means of Regeneration and Conversion as well as Edification of such as are Regenerate 3. I conceive that between such as are in a course discovering certainly non-regeneration there are a middle sort of whom there is no sufficient ground probably to judge them regenerate My reason is because to gâ—ound a positive act of Judgement that a man is regenerate in foro exteriori there is requisite some seemingness of a spiriâ—ual sincerity in a mans profession i. e that he doth it from a spiritual principle upon spiritual motives to a spiritual End But a meer sober not mocking serious Profession without more is not a positive appearance of spiritual supernatural sincerity I humbly conceive there cannot be had positive probable Evidences of this ordinarily without observation of a mans way after Profession for a time wherein notice may be taken of his walking equally in the latitude of Duties and constantly in variety of cases and conditions To conclude Mr. Baxter and are at agreemâ—nt upon the Matter concerning the quâ—lification that is sufficient for admitting persons into the visible Church viz. Serious profession without delay to enquire for more and so we are agreed in the main about the matter of the visible Church We differ in this that he thinks persons are not to be admitted but under consideration of persons judged at least probably converted and regenerated My mind is that they are to be admitted under the name of serious sober outward Professors abstracting from Conversion or Non-conversion I have thus at large recited the words of this Reverend Brother that the Reader may perceive the true state of the Controversie and how we are agreed in the main and on what grounds he proceedeth and that if there be any that consent not with me in the point wherein he and I differ they may yet be perswaded to take up in his way and not remove so far from the truth as I conceive Mr. Blake hath done And as to the difference it self 1. The main thing wherein I perceive that I differ from this Reverend man and some other about such matters is that my Judgement of Charity is much more extensive then theirs seems to be I confess that when it comes to a confident perswasion of another mans sincerity I am apt to be jealous as well as they and also when we speak of the Profession of men collectively considered I am forced to some harder thoughts of many then some have but when I have to do with Individuals I am apt to extend this charitable Judgment further then I see many do not by making the way to heaven any broader than they For when we are upon the point in thesi what is the proper qualification of a Saint I think there is no difference among us but when we speak of it in hypothesi and of the actual qualification of this Individual person whether he have the foresaid life or not I am apt to think it my duty to judge the best till I know the worst and to hope well though with much fear where some think they see no ground of hopes I confess it seems to me but cold charity that can afford men our good thoughts so far as to take them for visible Church members but can find no room for a hope of their being in a state of Salvation I have hopes of the Salvation of many thousands that I perceive some
others have no such thoughts of 2. More particularly I cannot yet see that I can be excused or disobliged from having a positive Hope taking Hope in the vulgar sense of the saving estate of that man that professeth seriously and soberly that he truly Repenteth and Believeth in Christ and hath not yet utterly forfeited the Credit of his word Charity thinketh no evil believeth all things hopeth al things 1 Cor. 13.5 7. I think the very Maxims of Nature cleared and enforced by Christ in the Gospel do teach me to believe that my brother is not a Lyar till I see convincing evidence of the contrary I confess I judge my self to owe this charitable construction and judgement of his serious Profession especially in so so great a cause to my Neighbour who hath not evidently disobliged me even as much as I owe my bread to the hungry and clothes to the naked yea or the liberty of the common Ayr or earth if it were in my power to restrain it 3. And I do not find myself at least ordinarily and easily capable of suspending my judgement of the truth or falshood of a mans Profession and being wholly neutral in it 4. Yea I perceive that it is the judgement of this Reverend Brother that we should noâ— be Neutral nor suspend our judgement about the Truth of the Profession which we require but that we should seek after that which he calleth a Moral Sincerity herein yea and sometime delay and try them further who offer a suspicious Profession 5. And I must confess that I take it for a great sin to censure my Brother positively to be a Lyar and to be a child of the Devil â—nd in a state of Damnation without clear convincing Evidence 6. And it seems to me a thing utterly Improbable if not certainly unâ—rue that God should require any man as sine qua non to his Church-entrance or admittance that he profess true Faith and Repentance to the Minister and Church as before them and yet that both Minister and people are bound to receive this Profession abstractively as to the Faith and Repentance so professed God knoweth the heart without Profâ—ssion it is therefore because of us that know not mens hearts that profession is required And must we then receive such a profession abstractively from the thing professâ—d Every word iâ— ordainâ—d to be a sign of the mind and a profession is formally a Relative Being The Matter of the Sign viz. The Word or the like a Bruit a Parrot may possiblâ— have And if the very Essence of a profession qua talis contein its Relâ—tion to the thing professed and the mind of the Professor then is it destructive to the very ends and Use of a Profesâ—ion to abstract the material Sign from the thing professed If you sâ—y that it is not Regeneration which they are supposed to profess I answer it is true Repentance and Faith in Christ which they are supposed to profess and that is Regeneration or the principal part of it in sensu passivo To what purpose should we imagine that men should be obliged by God to make so solemn a profession which none of the hearers are in the least obliged to believe to be true 7. We are certainly bound to believe a sober credible person of proved fidelity in other things when he solemnly professeth to Repent and believe else we must deny credit to that which beareth plain Evidence of Credibility therefore we must believe all others according to the proportion of their Credibility and not deny them credit without just cause 8. I never yet heard any assign any other cause why God should require an open profession than the revealing of the thing professed and the consequents thereof therefore till we hear a proof of some other Reason we have cause to adhere to this 9. All men are bound to judge that God would have no man to tell a lye therefore they are bound to judge that God would have no man to profess that he Repenteth when he doth not therefore he that is to judge my Profession to be by Gods commanding and approving Will is also to judge it to be a true Profession But the Ministers and the Church are judicio charitatis fide humana to judge that the Profession of the person is such as God doth require and accept as to the main substance before they baptize him and receive him into Communion upon the account of that Profession 10. I conceive that this Reverend Brother granteth in effect the thing which I dispute for while he affirmeth that such a Moral Sincerity may be lookt after as that All Circumstances considered by which Ingenuity is estimate among men there appears no reason why the man may not and ought not to be esteemed as to the matter to think and purpose as he speaketh For I plead for no more then this Object But this is nothing to the Principle that it proceedeth from special or common Grace Answ. A true Repentance and saving faith can come from none but a supernatural Principle of special Grace and therefore he that professeth this Repentance and Faith doth thereby profess that supernatural Principle therefore if am bound to believe that he speaks as he thinks then I am bound to believe that he is a truly penitent Believer if he know his own heart and he is liker to know it better then I. Moreover he saith that To ground a positive Act of Judgement that a man is Regenerate in foro exteriori there is requisite some seemingness of spiritual sincerity that is that he doth it from a spiritual principle motives c. To which I say that a serious Profession of Faith and Repentance is a Credible seemingness of Faith and Repentance And he that professeth true Faith and Repentance must needs profess them as from a spiritual Principle and Motives and to a spiritual End for they cannot be from any other principle or motives principally nor to any other ultimate End I am therefore forced to dissent from the main reason of this Reverend Brothers judgement herein viz. That there cannot be had a pâ—sitâ—ve pâ—obâ—ble Evidence of this ordinarily without observation of a mâ—ns way after Profession for a time c. For though câ—nfâ—ss this is fuller Evidence which he pleadeth for yet still I judge that a sober sâ—rious Profession is a credible Evidence of the thing professed till the person have quite forfeited the Credit of his word And ouâ—ward Reformation may be forced or counterfeit as well though not easily aâ— words 〈◊〉 it was a saving faith and Repentance which Peter invited the Iâ—ws to Act. 2 and Paul the Jaâ—lor Act 16. c. So doubt not but they took the following profession of these men as a credible Evâ—dence of the same saving Faith which they profest Argum. 4. That which hath Evidence of Credibiliâ—y ought to be believed But the profession of men or their bare words who have not forfeited
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
profess to assent to the truth of that Doctrine and no moâ—e unless as that Assent may imply the Consent of the Will are not Saints But let us peruse some other Texts besides these that Mr. Blake citeth The Congregations of the Saints are mentioned in the Old Testament as Psal. 89 5 7. and 149 1. But what Saints these were may appear by the Promises made to them Ps. 149.5 9 4 16.3 37.28 97.10 132.9 16. 145 10. The Children of Israel a people neer unto him are called Saints Psal. 148.14 but it is because they are a part of them his people in heart and the rest profess themselves to be his People in a saving sense And if there were any that did not so he was not an Israelite by Religion nor to be of that Common-wealth but to be cut off from his People Acts 9.13 The Saints at Jerusalem that Paul persecuted were such as not only professed saving Faith but also had the witness of Martyrdom and Persecutions to testifie their Sincerity They that continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking bread and prayers having all things common selling their possessions and goods and parting them to all men as every man had need praising God c. did profess more then a Faith and Repentance short of that by which we are saved But so did the Church at Jerusalem Act. 2.41 42. to the end yea the multitude of them that Believed were of one heart one soul and great grace was upon them all c. Acts 4.32 to 36. so that we may see what Saints the Church at Jerusalem were And if all were not such we see evidently that the whole was denominated from such The Church of Rome were all called Saints Rom. 1.7 True But what was meant by that word and what Saints did they appear to Paul by their Profession to be Even such as were beloved of God whose Faith was spoken of throughout the world that were dead to sin but alive to God that had obeyed from the heart that form of Doctrine delivered to them and being made free from sin became the servants of Righteousness and of God having their fruit to holiness and the end everlasting life Rom. 1.7 8. and 6 11 14 17 18 21. whose obedience was come abroad to all men Rom. 16.19 Here is more then the Profession of a common Faith The Corinthians are called Saints True But what is meant by Saints such as called on the name of the Lord Iesus Christ having much of his grace enriched by him in all things coming behind in no Gift waiting for the coming â—f our Lord Iesus Christ who shall confirm them to the end that they may be blameless at his coming 1 Cor. 1.2 to ver 10. all was theirs 1. Cor. 3.22 23. They were such Saints as were washed and sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Iesus and by the Spirit of God and such as were to â—udge the World and the Angels Chap. 6.3 11. delivered from that unrighteousness that would have kept from Heaven ver 9.10 11. such as had no temptation but what was common to man whom the faithful God would not suffer to be tempted above their strength c. Chap. 10.13 such as were not so much as to eat with the notoriously wicked Chap. 5 11. and therefore doubtless Professed Godliness themselves in whom godly sorrow had wrought carefulness clearing of themselves zeal c. 2 Cor. 7.11 in whom the Apostle had confidence in all things ver 16. Object But Paul saith they were carnal and taxeth them with some gross Errors and Sins Answ. 1. So are all the Regenerate carnal in part and guilty of too many sins And it is not Impenitency after admonition that he chargeth them with Their sin was no worse to our eye than David's or Solomon's 2. If any were so bad as to be notoriously ungodly those are not of that number whom he calleth Saints as they are not of them that have the following Descriptions of Saints which I have cited but only were among them but not of them The Galathians I find not called Saints but to call them a Church of Christ or Believers is Equipollent And what Saints were they Why they were all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus having been baptized into Christ and put him on and were all one in him and were Abraham's seed and heirs according to the Promise Gal. 3.26 27 29. And because they were sons God sent the Spirit of his Son into their hearts by which they cryed Abba Father and therefore were no more servants but sons and if sons then heirs of God through Christ. Object But Paul was afraid of them lest he bestowed upon them labour in vain Answ. 1. It appeareth by what is said that it was not such a fear as made him take them for ungodly 2. This confirmeth what I maintain that the Apostles judgement of them proceeded according to the Evidences of probability He took himself bound to believe their Profession so far as they contradicted it not and according to the prevalency of their Errors which were against it he was jealous of their condition and if they had proceeded so far as to have declared themselves certainly ungodly Paul would have denominated them a Church no more The Church of Ephesus are called Saints Eph. 1.1 But what Saints such as were blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ chosen before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before him in love pâ—edestinated to the adoption of Children by Jesus Christ according to the good pleasure of his will to the praise of the glory of his Grace wherein he made them accepted in the beloved in whom they had redemption through his blood the remission of sins and have obtained an Inheritance being predestinated c. Who trusted in Christ and were sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise which is the earnest of their Inheritance they were such as believed in the Lord Jesus and loved all the saints and were quickened who had been dead in trespasses and sins were raised up together and made to sit in heavenly places If Mr. Blake while he abhorreth the name of a Saint or Church equivocally so called would not make all words equivocal that in Scripture are used to denominate or describe a Church or Saint we might easily be resolved by such passages as these what Paul meaneth by a Church or Saint See further Eph. 3.18 All Saints comprehend what is the breadth and length depth height and Christ dwelleth in their hearts by faith and they rooted and grounded in love Eph. 3.17 18. But Mr. Blakes Saints do none of this therefore they are no Saints in Scripture sense With this text compare Eph. 2.19 and see what a Church is and what it is to be fellow-Citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God and
what persons have such a thing The like testimonies the Apostle John gives of them as may quickly be seen But all the doubt is Whether the seven reproved Churches in Rev. 2. and 3. were such or not To which I say 1. All of them professed the foresaid saving Faith 2. There is no sin charged on them that was visible and inconsistent with true saving Faith 1. For the Church of Ephesus we heard what they were esteemed by Paul a little before and here their grace is mentioned and the faults expressed are consistent with true grace 2. The same I say of the Churches of Pergamus and Thyatyra And for the Nicolaitans and other Hereticks whom they are blamed for suffering as the former is commended for hating them they are such as were to be cut off from the Church and while they were in it were not of it Nor are they any where called Believers Saints Disciples or Church-members But it is the Church of Sardis that Mr. Blake takes special notice of And it is said of her indeed that she had a Name to live and was dead But 1. in that they had a name to live it seems it was a living faith which they Professed and not only one short of it 2. Their death was not a death in reigning sin such as is the death of the unsanctified But a declining condition comparatively called death as the children of God do oft complain of deadness And therefore its next said Be watchful and strengthen the things that remain that are ready to dye And it s exprest that their deadness was in that their works were not found perfect before God that is that many or most of them had defiled their garments with some Heresie or vice which the rest had not done 3. How far this was notorious to others is of further enquiry 4. If they had gone on so far as by obstinate impenitency after admonition to shew themselves void of saving faith they had been unchurched as appeareth by the threatning The Church of Philadelphia is so far commended as that the case is put out of doubt And the Church of Laodicea though discommended hath nothing visible charged upon it inconsistent with sincerity and the luke-warmness which is charged on them they are threatned to be spewed out for and so to be unchurched And thus we see what a Church was and what Saints were and what Believers and Disciples were supposed to be by the Apostles and what is the signification of these words in Scripture for they are all of the same extent Mr. Blake saith He is a believer in Scripture that is a visible Professor that puts himself in the number of those that expect salvation by Jesus Christ. Answ. 1. A Professor of what Of true saving faith 2. Not that puts himself among them locally only for so may an Infidel but that becomes one of them as far as to a Profession of it And if they expect salvation by Christ either they profess that faith which salvation is annexed to or else they give God the lye and contradict both Scripture and themselves even in their very Profession As if they should say I look to be saved by Christ but I will not take him for my Saviour nor be saved from sin by him And sure such a Profession makes no mâ—n a Saint Believer or Church-member Thus much I have said to prove that all the Baptized are accounted Saints and therefore Professed a saving Sanctity The second Title which I mentioned follows of which I shall be more brief All the Baptized are accounted to be dead and risen with Christ even dead to sin and risen to newness of life therefore they all profess a saving faith The proof of this is full in the two Texts already cited Rom. 6. and Col. 2.11 12. Rom. 6.33 c. How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death Therefore we are buried with him by Baptism into death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father so we also should walk in newness of Life For if we have been planted together into the likeness of his Death we shall be also in the likeness of his Resurrection Knowing this that our old man is crucified with him that the body of sin might be destroyed that hence forth we should not serve sin for he that is dead is freed from sin Now if we be dead with Christ we believe that we shall also live with him Likewise reckon ye also your selves to be dead indeed unto sin but alive unto God through Iesus Christ our Lord. Here is a full Report of the use of Baptism and the Profession of all that are Baptized and the state that they are supposed to be in so that I cannot speak it plainlier than the words themselves do Calv. on the Text saith Extra Controversiam est induere nos Christum in Baptismo hâc lege nos baptizari ut unum cum ipso simus Imò docet hanc mortis societatem praecipuè in Baptismo spectandam esse Neque enim ablutio sola illic sed mortificatio quoque veteris hominis interitus proponitur Vnde palà m fit ex quo recipimur in Christi gratiam mortis ejus efficaciam statim emergere Porro quid valeat haeâ— cum morte Christi societas continuo sequitur ut scilicet nobis emortui si amus novi homines Nam à mortis societate transitum merito facit ad vitae participationem quia haec duo inter se individuo nexu cohaerent veterem hominem Christi morte aboleri ut ejus resurrectio justitiam instauret nosque efficiat novas creaturas Haec autem est Doctrina Quod Mors Christi efficax est ad nequitiam carnis nostrae extinguendam ac prostigandam Resurrectio vero ad suscitandam melioris naturae novitatem quódque per Baptismum in istius gratiae participationem cooptamur In summa Qualis sit Baptismi ritè suscepti veritas docet So Col. 2.11 12. which I shall not stay to recite because it is to the same purpose and before cited The third Title mentioned in the Argument is this All that are Baptized have Professedly put on Christ therefore they have professed saving Faith The Antecedent is expressed Gal. 3.27 For as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. The Consequence is proved in that to put on Christ heartily is to be made true partakers of him and living members of him therefore to Profess this is inseparable from the Profession of saving Faith yea by that faith is he truly put on Putting on Christ is the same with Putting on the New man which after God is created in Righteousness and true holiness being renewed in the spirit of our minds Ephes. 4.20 21 22 23 24. Col. 3.10 It is putting on the New
man which is renewed in knowledge according to the Image of him that created him So that this is no common work if any be proper to the saved And putting on the Lord Iesus Christ is put for the state of Sanctity in opposition to a fleshly Life Rom. 13.13 14. saith Calvin on this Text Induere Christum hic significat virtute Spiritus ejus undique nos muniri qua idonei ad omnes Sanctitatis partes reddamur sic enim instauratur in nobis imago Dei quae unicum est animae ornamentum Respicit enim Paulus ad vocationis nostrae sinem quia Deus nos adoptans in corpus unigeniti silii sui inserit quidem hac lege ut nos abdicantes priore vita siamus in ipso novi homines Quare etiam alibi fideles dicit Christum inâ—uere in baptismum Gal. 3.27 and upon Galat. 3.27 he saith Quum dicit Christum induisse intelligit Christo sic esse insitos ut coram Deo nomen ac personam Christi gerant ac in ipso magis quà m in seipsis censeantur And he comes to the objection How all that are baptized can be said to put on Christ when Baptism is not effectual with all And he answereth in sum That to Hypocrites it is uneffectual qui nudis signis superbiunt But then he saith that the Apostle speaking of these non respicit Dei institutionem sed impiorum corruptelam But doubtless it is Gods institution that we must look to for direction in our administration Quum autem fideles alloquitur qui rite utuntur illa tunc conjungit cum sua veritate quam figurant Quare neque enim fallacem Pompam ostentat in Sacramentis sed quae externa Ceremonia figurat exhibit simul reipsa Hinc sit ut veritas secundum Dei institutum conjuncta sit cum signis To the same purpose say other Protestants The next Title mentioned in the Argument was Sons of God All that are Baptized are the visible or esteemed Sons of God by faith in Christ therefore they all profess that justifying faith to which the real or special Son-ship is promised The Antecedent is experssed in Gal. 3.16 17. For ye are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus which he proveth in the next words For as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. What Sons of God are in Scripture sense may be seen Joh. 1.12 Rom 8.14 19. Phil. 2.15 1 Joh. 3.1 2. Gal. 4 1 2 5 7. and Rom. 8.17 If sons then heirs heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ was a good consequence in Pauls judgement In this saith John the children of God are manifest from the children of the devil whosoever doth not righteousness is not of God neither he that loveth not his brother 1 John 3.10 therefore Mr Blake's Saints are not the children of God but of the Devil See also John 11.52 Rom. 8 16.21 But Mr. Blake objecteth Rom 9.4 To them pertained the Adoption and Gomarus his Comment Answ. 1. Gomarus saith not that any were in either sense sons of God without a Profession of saving Faith 2. It was not after their unchurching for unbelief that the Adoption is said to pertain to them but before and then let Mr. Blake prove if he can that any Israelites were adopted without profession of that Faith which was then saving I doubt not to prove the contrary anon And 3. If he could prove that such there were among the Israelites yet he will never prove that they are called Sons though the Nation were because the denomination was principally from the true Sons and next from the professed ones but never from or to them that professed only a common faith None are visibly Sons that be not visibly true Believers The next Title mentioned in the Argument is Abraham's Seed All that are baptized are called Abrahams Seed Gal. 3.17 18 19. therefore they all profess a justifying Faith The Consequence is proved in that none are Abraham's Seed in Scripture Gospel sense but those cordially that are true Believers and those appearingly that profess true Faith This is proved Rom. 9.4 6 7 8. Rom. 4.11 that he might be the Father of all them that believe that Righteousness might be imputed to them also This therefore is a justifying faith and the priviledge of the Justified that is here mentioned It s added ver 12 13. And the Father of Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision but also walk in the steps of the faith of our Father Abraham yet uncircmucised for the promise that he should be heir of the world was not to Abraham or his seed by the law but by the righteousness of faith Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promâ—se might be sure to all the seed even to that also which is of the faith of Abraham the Father of us all So Gal. 3.6.7 8 9. Even as Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness Know ye therefore that they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham and the Scripture fore-seeing that God would justifie thâ— heathen by faith preached before the Gospel to Abraham in thee shall all Nâ—tions be blessed So then they which be of Faith are blessed with faithful Abraham So ver 14.16 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ that we might receive the Promise of the Spirit through faith Now to Abraham and his seed were the Promises made he saith not and to seeds as of many but as of one And to thy seed which is Christ and so to those that are in him It is hence most undeniable That all Abrahams true Seed are Justified and have a Justifying faith and all his Professing seed do Profess this faith The next Title mentioned in the Argument is Heirs according to the Promise All the Baptized were Heirs according to the Promise None that Profess not a Justifying faith are Heirs according to the Promise either really or appearingly therefore none that Profess not a Justifying faith or their children should be baptized The Major is expressed in Gal. 3.17 18 19. The Minor of which is all the doubt is proved from Rom. 8 17. where there is an express concatenation of children heirs of God co-heirs with Christ that suffering with him shall be glorified with him Gal. 4.1 6 7. The heir is Lord of all and a Son therefore hath the spirit of the Son by which they cry Abba Father So Tit. 3.5 6 7. According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of Regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost which he shed on us c. that being justified by his Grace we should he made heirs according to the hope of eternal Life The heirs then are Regenerate Justified and have the hope of eternal Life So Eph. 3.6 The Gentiles being made fellow-heirs and of the same body are partakers of
other and they ever lye under all this Obligation You next instance in Prayer and conclude that As for Prayer there is no more ground or colour to make it a converting Ordinance than the Supper c. Repl. 1. A man that hath but common desires may be perswaded to ask for what he so desires Though he have no Promise of Acceptance you do not find him threatned with judgement for such a Prayer so it be not groslâ— hypocritical or wicked as he is for unworthy receiving the Supper without a discerning the Lords Body 2. When we exhort any man to pray for Christs pardon the Spirit c. we therein exhort him to desire them for desire is the soul of Prayer and the chief part of its essence Now the first of these desires which we exhort them to is conversion it self even that they would turn to God by a change of their wills and express them in Prayer 3. I can shew you where the wicked are commanded to seek the Lord that is by Prayer to express their returning hearts which implyeth their returning it self but you cannot shew where ever they are commanded to communicate with the Church in the Sacrament but in this order first to be converted and repent and so baptized and so communicate or if Baptized already to be Penitents first and Communicants next But if you would have all exhorted to the Lords Supper for conversion whom we are bound to exhort to Prayer for conversion you would do that which I confess I dare not do The 11. Argument was that Ordinance which is Eucharistical and consolatory supposeth such as partake of it to have part and portion in that thing for which thanks is given c. but c. To this it s answered that the assumption might as well have bin of the Word and Prayer which are Eucharistical and Consolatory Repl. 1. To hear a Sermon is not to give thanks 2. The Application of the Word must be according to mens various states An unregenerate man may take this for consolation If I be converted and repent and believe I shall be saved A true believer may apply it to another measure of consolation because I am a believer this Promise is mine that is secureth me of the benefit Now if the Impenitent and unbeliever shall do the later he sins such another sin as if he received the Sacrament which is an Ordinance Instituted for personal assumption and application of the general Promise 2. As for Prayer 1. To petition is not to give thanks 2. And for Thanksgiving it self an Impenitent man may not give thanks for true saving faith Repentance part in Christ and hope of Glory though he may for the mercy that he hath because he may not lye Now in the Lords Supper we must give thanks for our part in Christ and pardon and life through him or at least for the present Gift of Christ to us which we consent to accept It s added This Ordinance is not wholly Eucharistical c. It is for humbling as well as for comforting Repl. But if the other use be common to it with other Ordinances and here Inseparable from the Eucharistical then other Ordinances may be used to that end but this may not by him that may not do both because if he receive the Sacrament he signally Professeth both The substance of the twelfth Argument with its answer is spoke to before where Mr. Blake saith that The unregenerate may so far be suitably worthy for this work that he may know himself called to it and that it would be his sin to hold back from it and he may hopefully expect a blessing in it I reply 1. That he is called to it remotely that is first to repent and believe and to communicate we yield and that it is every mans sin that keeps off that is that comes not in this order But that he may lawfully come before this Repentance you never proved nor shall do I think 2. I would you could shew us on what ground he may hopefully expect a blessing in it True hope goeth not beyond the promise but the unregenerate have no promise unless the Arminians be in the right of a blessing on any Ordinance much less on that which they cannot prove that they may use till they are converted Yet Hope in a larger sense they may have where they can prove that God hath set them a work though they have no promise But that 's not here The 13th Argument is That Ordinance which was instituted for Communion of Saints is intended only for Saints c. It s answered by distinguishing of Sants as such by calling and separation for God or regeneration and that the Lords supper is the priviledge of the Church as visible Repl. Its one thing to ask Who may demand it and come there and another to ask To whom may we give it We may give it to all professedly separated for God None may ask or take it but those that are heartily separated to God But your Professor of a lower faith is neither of these and therefore may neither seek it nor may we give it him if he do seek it Whoever professeth himself separated for God doth profess saving sanctification which consisteth therein Self and Earth is highest in all the unregenerate therefore they are not separated heartily to God The 14th Argument was If Baptism it self to the adult is not regenerating or converting then not the Lords supper but c. This Argument Mr. Blake hath no more to say to but that this seemeth to suppose an opinion of Conversion by the very work done which he disclaimeth But here is no such supposition at all intimated and he should have dealt with it as he found it and not so have bawkt it especially when Mr. Gilaspie had so explained and confirmed it And because Mr. Blake thought best to silence Mr. Gilaspie's proof of his Assumption and I think it worthy the Readers observation at least that he may see how far Mr. Blake is from truth in his affirmations of the singularity of my opinion I shal here transcribe them Aaron 's Rod blossoming pag. 514.515 The assumption that baptism it self is not a Regenerating Ordinance I prove thus 1. Because we read of no persons of age baptized by the Apostles except such as did profess faith in Christ gladly received the Word and in whom some begun work of the Spirit of Grace did appear I say not that it really was in all but somewhat of it did appear in all 2. If the baptism of those who are of age be a regerating Ordinance then you suppose the person to be baptized to be an unregenerate person even as when a Minister first preacheth the Gospel to Pagans he cannot but suppose them to be unregenerate But I believe no Conscientious Minister N. B. would adventure to Baptize one who hath manifest and Infallible signs of unregeneration Sure we cannot
Scripture either of Precept or example where any person in baptism or the Lords Supper doth engage or is required to engage to begin to believe with a saving faith or to believe with a faith which at the present he hath not Shew but one word of Scripture to prove this if you can if you cannot I may conclude that therefore we must not require that which we have no Scripture ground to require 2. This Engagement to believe savingly is either for a remote distant time or for the next instant â—ut no unbeliever as to that faith is called to promise in Baptism such a saving faith either at a distant time or the next instant therefore not at all 1. Not at a distant time For first that were to resolve to serve the Devil and be an unbeliever till that time 2. And no man is sure to live any longer time 2. Not at the next instant For first that instant cometh as soon as the word of Promise is out of his mouth even before Baptism and therefore by that Rule he must believe savingly before 2. We may as well stay one minute or instant to see whether he will perform his Promise as to baptize him upon that bare Promise of believing the next minute 3. It is a ridiculous unreasonable conceit that any man should say I believe not savingly yet but within a minute of an hour I will and that this should be required in baptism and the Lords Supper 3. God makes it not the condition or qualification of them that are to be admitted to Baptism or the Lords Supper that they should Promise to do that which they have no Moral Power to do I mean such as the seed or habit of Grace containeth as to the act But the unregenerate have no Moral Power to believe with a saving faith Ergo c. The Major is proved thus 1. To promise to believe savingly is to Profess that they are truly willing to believe savingly but no wicked men are truly willing so to believe therefore they are not called to promise it for that were to be called to profess an untruth and so to lye Unless as they are called to be really willing and promise both and that is but to be sincerely faithful and to promise to continue so 2. It is not found any where in Scripture that I know of that God doth call any wicked man to promise to be a godly man or true believer before he is so but only commandeth him to be so And if God never call such men to such a promise at all then is it not the condition or qualification of persons to be admitted to the Sacraments We still speak of the aged The Minor is proved from many Scriptures and is the common Doctrine of all Antipelagians at least We are dead in trespasses and sins and must we baptize and give the Lords Supper to such dead men upon a Promise that they will be alive Out of Christ we can do nothing Without faith it is impossible to please God It is God that giveth to will and to do of his good pleasure And no wicked man can tell whether God will give him the grace of saving faith therefore he cannot promise to have it But I shall speak more to this under the last Argument Argum. 16. If there can be no example given in Scripture of any one that was baptized without the Profession of a saving faith nor any Precept for so doing then must not we baptize any without it But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent What is pretended this way we shall examine anon among the Objections In the mean time let us review the Scripture examples of Baptism which might afford us so many several Arguments but that I shall put them together for brevity 1. I have already shewed that John required the Profession of true Repentance and that his Baptism was for Remission of sin 2. When Christ layeth down in the Apostolical Commission the Nature and Order of his Apostles work it is first to make Disciples and then to Baptize them into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost And as it is a making Dâ—sciples which is first expressed in Matthew so Mark expoundeth who these Disciples are as to the aged by puâ—ting Believing before Baptism and that we may know that it is Justifying faith that he meaneth he annexeth first Baptism and then the Promise of salvation Matth. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved This is not like some occasional Historical mention of Baptism but it s the very Commission of Christ to his Apostles for Preaching and Baptism and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and Order Their first task is by teaching to make Disciples which are by Mark called Believers The second work is to Baptize them whereto is annexed the Promise of their Salvation The third work is to teach them all other things which are afterward to be learnt in the School of Christ. To contemn this Order is to renounce all Rules of Order For where can we expect to find it if not here I profess my conscience is fully satisfied from this Text that it is one sort of faith even saving that must go before Baptism and the Profession whereof the Minister must expect Of which see what is before cited out of Calvin and Piscator That it was saving faith that was required of the Jews and professed by them Acts 2.38 41 42. is shewed already and is plain in the Text. Acts 8. The Samaritans believed and had great joy and were baptized into the name of Jesus Christ ver 8 12. Whereby it appeareth that it was both the understanding and will that were changed and that it was not a meer Dogmatical faith and that they had the Profession of a saving faith even Simon himself we shall shew anon when we answer their objections Acts 8.37 The condition on which the Eunuch must be baptized was if he believe with all his heart which he Professed to do and that was the Evidence that Philip did expect Paul was baptized after true conversion Act. 9.18 The Holy Ghost fell on the Gentiles Acts 10.44 before they were baptized and they magnified God And this Holy Ghost was the like gift as was given to the Apostles who believed on the Lord Iesus and it was accompanied with Repentance unto life Act. 11.17 18. Acts 16.14.15 Lydia's heart was opened before she was baptized and she was one that the Apostles judged faithful to the Lord and offered to them the evidence of her faith Acts 16.30 31 33 34. The example of the Jaylor is very full to the resolution of the question in hand He first asketh what he should do to be saved The Apostle answereth him believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and thy house so that it was a saving faith that here is mentioned He rejoyced and believed with all
Profession of a common faith short of saving or with that common faith it self What should a man say to such a confuter but advise him to joyn with us his weak Brethren in desiring God to pardon us for such troubling and abusing the Church 1. As to his Description of the persons to be Baptized I shall add 1. That his last Description pag. 173. containeth nothing but what may stand with First an open refusal of God and Christ. 2. And that which is commonly taken for the sin against the Holy Ghost For its past doubt that men may both be convinced of Duty and confess the Necessity of it and yet may openly profess that the world and their lusts are yet so dear to them that they will not yet have God to be their God Christ to be their Saviour on the Gospel terms And I think a man that openly refuseth Christ at the present should not be baptized at the present though he be convinced of Duty and acknowledge the necessity of it As to his other Description pag. 172. the word Engagement to it either signifieth an engagement savingly to believe from that very instant forward and this doth Necessarily import a present Profession of consent and so of present saving faith For man can so engage that doth not Profess such consent and believe And this destroyeth Mr. Blakes cause Or else it signifieth such an engagement to believe for some distant future time which is consistent with a non-profession of present consent to have Christ as offered And this is the same with that before confuted If such may be Baptized then they may say we are convinced that we must savingly believe in Christ and we do engage our selves to do it as soon as we can spare the world and forsake the Flesh and the Devil but yet we cannot and will not do this Baptize such who dare for me But for a further search of Mr. Blakes mind observe his words pag. 175. Where he answers to what I now object And first he citeth these words of mine Where you say that an acknowledgement of the Necessity of such faith with engagement to it is sufficient for a Title to the state I reply Then those that at present renounce Christ so it be against their knowledge and Conscience and will engage to own him sincerely for the future have a Title to Baptism To which he replyeth How comes I pray you that future in you manifest much reading in the Law and I have heard this as a Maxim In obligationibus ubi nullus certus statuitur dies quovis die debetur There is no day overtaken but engagement is for present c. To this I rejoine 1. It is the first time that ever I heard of an engagement that was not de futuro as to the performance We are agreed that the Engagement is present but the question is whether it be to a present or future performance And it is by Covenant or Promise that Mr. Blake supposeth this engagement made And is there any which is not de futuro If the Church cannot hit the Right way of Baptizing till such elucidations as these direct them to it If you Promise to believe de praesenti either you do at that present believe or you do not If you do your Promise as to that present act which you already perform is vain as if I Promise to give you that which I have given you already or in that instant give you which were no promise but a donation or profession If you do not then believe then your promise as you call it is a falshood And to tell a lie is no such a duty as can give right to Baptism No man should say he believeth when he doth not 2. But if it may be he means not futurum remotius but futurum proximum That cannot well be neither because he saith the engagement is for present But suppose he do mean by present the futurum proximum either this importeth a profession of saving faith as well as an engagement to believe the next instant or it doth not If it do I have the thing I seek and Mr. Blakes cause is given away If not then Mr. Blake doth feign God to require such a kind of promise or engagement as our titile to baptism which I believe the common vote of reason will pronounce to be vain ridiculous if not impossible by most Vain it must needs be to make so solemn a promise of performing that in the next instant which he may actually perform save all that ado Should I cause covenants to be solemnly drawn up and witnesses called and seals affixed that I will give such a thing in the next Minute after the sealing why then may I not as well give the thing it self The Minister may stay one minute longer before he go to Church to baptize the person or he may use one word or two more in prayer and exhortation and by that time the instant would be come And Ridiculous it seems to me that any man should be admitted upon such a promise as this I will not yet leave my sin for God nor renounce the world the Flesh and the Devill for Christ or take him for my only Lord and Saviour but I engage my self to do it or I will do it as soon as the word is out of my mouth or I am not yet willing to have Christ as he is offered but I will be willing the next instant If any say so to me I will hold my hand from baptizing one minute and ask him whether now he be willing For certainly the man must break his promise between the making and the sealing of it if he be not a sound Believer already For there must go more then one instant between his promise and the Act of baptizing unless we had greater velocity of action If therefore Mr. Blake's professor shall say I promise to believe savingly the next instant then if he do not the promise is broke before it is sealed If he do I know no reason but why I may require him to profess that which he hath And is it not a kind of impossibility for any unregenerate man rationally and soberly to promise to be regenerate the next minute or instant Or for any that is destitute of saving faith to promise to believe savingly the next instant If he hath grace of such command and can believe the next moment why not now And doth not that man shew his heart unfound that can believe the next moment and will not do it at the present If it be so in his power let him not stand promising but do it But perhaps some will say that Mr. Blake meaneth not the next instant or hour or day or any determinate time but only an indeterminate time some time hereafter To which I answer 1. He expresseth himself by the terms present and quovis die debetur therefore it expresly includeth the next instant or day
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
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
Lord commanded he kept not the Covenant nor Statutes of the Lord. Perhaps you will Object If this be not Notorious ungodliness what is The sin was more hainous than Drunkenness Fornication yea or Murder it self to be an Idolater and to set it up to defile the Land and it was a sin lived in who knows how long besides his fleshly life in having three hundred Concubines and seven hundred wives If all this may stand with Godliness then we cannot know any man to be ungodly then you will harden all the wicked in their presumption Answ. 1. If I should but look on it as a thing uncertain whether Solomon had true grace at that time or whether any intercision were made in his Justification and true Sanctification I should incur the heavy censure of many Divines If I question not the certainty of his grace and perseverance then I am supposed to make every common scandalous sinner to be fit for the reputation of a Saint and to contradict the Apostle who saith If ye live after the flesh ye shall die and neither Whoremonger nor Idolater shall inherit the Kingdom of God What is to be done in this strait I will tell you plainly what I think safest and let men think what they please 1. It is not improbable that Solomon committed much of this sin meerly under temptation to please his Wives 2. And that more of it lay in tolerating their Idolatry than in his own committing it 3. And that he did in other things continue his worship of the true God 4. And that he repented and wrote the Book Ecclesiastes on his Repentance though the Historie make no mention of it 5. Yet because the Holy Ghost doth so expresly charge him with having his own heart turned after other gods and going after them and building high places to them and his heart turning from the Lord and because the very setting up of so many Idols for others his 700 Wives is it self so hainous I think it is undeniable that he was an Idolater and lived in that sin besides his living with 300 Concubines and taking so fully the pleasure of his flesh as in Ecclesiastes he doth confess We are certain that all these are hainous sins and hazardous to a mans salvation 7. If the Devil tempt any wicked man upon the consideration of this Example to presume that he is in a state of Grace and to think with himself why may not I live in whoredom or drunkenness or worldliness and yet be in a justified estate as well as Solomon who did worse he may do well to bethink himself that 1. It is certain that he that liveth after the flesh shall die and that such gross sinners shall not enter into the Kingdom of God But we are not certain whether Solomon were justified and in a state of salvation at that time it is a Controversie among wise godly learned men and many of the Antient Fathers thought that he was not 3. And therefore any prudent man will take heed of venturing his salvation upon such uncertainty and will look more at the certainty which is on the other side of perishing if he live in such sins 4. And he may do well to consider that though Godliness be the same in all Ages in the main and equally necessary yet some sins may be more damning at some time than other In those daies of Solomon God had for some just reasons permitted or connived at the multiplicity of Wives and little is said against Concubines he had in his promises to his people made the most full and express mention of temporal blessings as Children long Life prosperity c. and in his threatnings most expresly mentioned temporal evils Spiritual and Eternal things were mentioned more obscurely and sparingly This Honor was reserved to Christ and the Gospel to bring Life and Immortalty more to light and to promise Spiritual and Eternal blessings and threaten Spiritual and Eternal misery more expresly and fully And consequently some sins of the flesh might not then be so certain marks of ungodliness as now and as it is a greater measure of spiritual refining and purity that is promised and justly expected under the Gospel so a greater measure must be looked after by every man in himself and by the Guides of the Church in its members and we must go directly to Jesus Christ for our Direction in such Cases So much to prevent the hurt of the wicked by this Example Yet I thought it necessary to make mention of it 1. because it is objected by the opposers of Discipline whose Objections must be answered 2. and because there is something in it at least ad hominem that the over-censorious have reason to consider of as to the point in hand How far we must take notice of such Examples in Discipline we shall further shew anon The rest of our propositions for the Negative shall be introduced by way of Answer to some Questions Quest. 7. May we not take a man for Notoriously Ungodly that hath been oft drunk or oft committed fornication Answ. The Practice is ungodly and his Case sad but we cannot certainly say he is graceless on that account alone unless he live in it impenitently Lot was twice drunk and incestuous And it is not possible for us to say just how oft a man may commit such a sin and yet have true grace Quest. 8. May we not be certain that he is graceless or ungodly that is a frequent Swearer Answ. It is a very dangerous case but simply considered no certain evidence of the point in question For 1. We know many that we see great signs of Grace in and that are well reputed of as eminent for Godliness that do frequently commit as great sins as some kind of rash swearing seems to be For example it is too rare to meet with a person so conscionable that will not frequently backbite and with some malice or envie speak evil of those that differ from them in Judgement or that they take to be against them or that they are fallen out with They will ordinarily censure them unjustly and secretly endeavour to disgrace them and take away their good name and love those that joyn with them in it So how many Professors will rashly rail and lye in their passions How few will take well a Reproof but rather defend their sin How many in these times that we doubt not to be godly have been guilty of disobedience to their Guides and of Schism and doing much to the hurt of the Church A very great sin 2. Peter Lot and its like David did oft commit greater sins Quest. 9. But what if they live many years in Sweating or the like sin is not that a certain sign of Ungodliness Answ. It is very sinfull and dangerous But. 1. we know not what information or Conviction they have had of it which much varies the Case In some countries where some oaths are grown customarie
Godly may both scorn in press and pulpit persecute and kill each other As one Godly man may persecute another for some Truths and Duties which he knows not to be such so in particular it is possible that such may imagine that private Meetings tend to schism or proud singularity and so may deride them Or he may by strangeness to them entertain some false report of the stricter Professors of Religion as if they were proud humorous schismaticks disobedient and differed only in these things and not in true piety from others And I believe I have known some in former times that were such who had such thoughts as these of all the Godly that were not conformable and of others that used any private Meetings living where they had little acquaintance with any of them save two or three that by scandals increased their prejudice and hearing no better language of them these persons would reproach them as bitterly as most that ever I heard and yet themselves lived not only uprightly to men but so piously that they seemed to hate all profaness and spent more time in secret prayer and reading then most I have known It is not therefore all scorn or persecution of Godly persons Doctrines or Duties that will prove a man to be Notoriously Graceless or Ungodly But again left any Ungodly person take occasion of presumption from all this let me add this much more 1. Though another cannot know such to be certainly ungodly yet they may know it by themselves who know their own ends and reasons better then we can do And alas the souls of such are never the safer because we are bound to judge charitably of them This is but to prevent our wronging them but it will not prevent their damnation 2. Though we know them not to be certainly ungodly yet God doth and it is he that must judge them And therefore he will put many a thousand out of heaven whom we may not put out of the Church When the Tares and Wheat are so mixed that we cannot pluck up the Tares without plucking up the Wheat that is in doubtfull inevident cases there we must let both grow till the time of harvest both in forbearing persecution by the sword and Excommunication but then God will sever the wicked from the just and gather out of his Kingdom all things that offend and them that work iniquity and cast them out into the lake of fire 3. And our selves may see cause enough to bewail the misery of many as too probable whom yet we cannot certainly conclude to be miserable yea we have cause to call them out of our communion of which more anon I must therefore intreat two sorts of Readers that they do not mis-interpret these foregoing passages First The Vngodly are desired to beware that they pervert not this to their own delusion nor to the opening of their mouths against the teachings and censures of the Church I cannot but fore-see that such will be prone to draw venom out of necessary truths and to say I may be godly and be saved though I pray not in my family though I swear or be drunk c. But such must know 1. That they cannot be saved if in the bent of their lives they live after the flesh and if God be not dearer to them than all the world and if their hearts be not more on heaven than on earth and if the main aim and business of their lives be not for God and the life to come nor can they be Godly or saved unless they truly hate their sin and long to be rid of it and are willing to be at the cost and labour of using Gods means by which they may be rid of it unless in the bent of their lives they overcome gross sin and live not in it and groan under their infirmities desiring to be rid of them feeling the need of a Saviour and flying to his blood for pardon and to his word and spirit for cure All this must be in every one at age that will be saved Now though we may be uncertain of a mans ungodliness by one or more such fals as Peters or Davids were when the bent of his life appeareth to be holy yet if the bent of your lives be carnal and you have not all this that I have now mentioned then you may be sure that you are Graceless though you never commit any scandalous sin much more when you live in them 2. And remember that you may know your own hearts and secret lives when we cannot It s no comfort to you therefore that a Minister is not certain of your Gracelesness if you be indeed Graceless what if we must hope the best who know not the worst alas this will be no relief to your souls Nor should you be offended if Ministers in preaching and personal reproof do speak terror to you for all this For 1. they preach to you as described in a graceless state and not named 2. They must tell you what every sin deserves and whither it leads and tell you of the sad probabilites of your damnable state though they have not a certainty 2. I foresee also that some Godly people will think that these passages though true may accidentally harden the wicked in their sin and therefore that this will do more harm than good To whom I say 1. That the wicked will draw evil from the most certain truths and all must not be concealed which they will abuse 2. Yet I must confess that my own heart made this Objection which caused me to think this Paper my self unfit to be published and so I did this two years lay it by And had I not understood that from the Coppy which I sent one friend so many are communicated and at such a distance into the hands of strangers and that somewhat defective and had I not been acquainted that they will print it if I will not it might have yielded still to this Objection for ought I know for had I been left to my own choice I should have laid it in the dark Now for the Affirmative I will shew you whom we may take for Notoriously ungodly and then I will shew you whom we must judge probably to be godly and whether we must not exclude some persons and refuse their Infants who yet are not Notoriously ungodly 1. A man that not inconsiderately or in a Temptation but deliberately and obstinately denieth any fundamental Article of the Christian faith is notoriously ungodly for he cannot have a godly heart that excludeth the necessary principles of Godliness from his head I mean those Truths without which there is no salvation for surely without them there can be no Grace He that denieth thus the God head or the Goodness Wisdom or Power of God or the Incarnation Holiness Death Ransom of man thereby Resurrection Rule or Judgement of Jesus Christ or the everlasting life that he giveth to Believers or the
many Proselites which in David's and Solomon's days joyned themselves in the presence of private persons and the Judges of the great Synedron had aâ— care of them they drove them not away after they were Baptized out of any place neither took they them neer unto them until their after-fruits appeared Ob. 2. If none but the Regenerate or sincere Believers have Title to Baptism and the Lords Supper then none can seek or receive them till they have Assurance of their sincerity which would exclude abundance of upright Christians Answ. 1. God layeth his commands upon us conjunctly and our casting off one will not authorize us to cast off another Upright Christians are obliged both to judge themselves to be what they are and to receive the Seals of the Covenant And if they judge themselves not to be upright when they are or question their integrity as a thing to be doubted of this is their sin and cannot be done inculpably And this sin will not justifie them in forbearing the Sacraments For one sin will not excuse another The thing therefore that such are bound to is first to use right means to know themselves and then to judge of themselves as they are and then to seek and receive the Sacraments And if he say I have tried and yet I cannot discern or I fear I am unfound yet that will not free him from the blame of mis-judging nor from the obligation of judging more justly of himself 2. There is a true discerning of a man 's own faith and repentance which is far below a strict Assurance and he that truly discerneth that he repenteth and believeth hath a clear ground to profess it though he have much doubting and fear of the contrary The judgement of few or none is in aequilibrio but it swayeth and determineth either to judge that they are sincere or that they are not If it judge that they are not when they are their duty is to rectifie that judgement out of hand If they judge that they are sincere though they attain not a full Certainty they have reason to act according to that judgement Mans heart is a dark piece and much unacquainted with it self and if Mr Blake or any of his opinion will prove that a man must suspend all his Actions which are not guided by a certain assured judgement he will evacuate most of Gods service in the Church I doubt not but he will confess that it is only the penitent that should profess themselves penitent in that Condition and only they that truly desire Christ and Grace that should say they desire them and only they that have received saving grace that should give God thanks for it as a received benefit And yet if no one should confess sin with profession of penitence but they that have full assurance that they are truly penitent if no one should beg grace with profession that he desireth it till he have full assurance of the truth of those desires and if no one should give thanks to God for Redemption in the special sense and effectual Vocation and Conversion and Justification Adoption Reconciliation Sanctification c. but those that have a full assurance that they have received these I doubt God would have little Confession Prayer or Thanksgiving of this sort from his people Is it unlawfull to say Lord I believe as long as we have any Vnbelief to be removed When Peter knew not but that he might shortly deny Christ with cursing and swearing yet might he lawfully confess his belief in him A man may warrantably speak and profess the Truth which he is not fully certain of as long as he doth it bona fide and really meaneth what he speaketh and uttereth his very heart so far as he knoweth it 2. And as long as he is not negligent in his endeavors to know it but faithfully labors to be acquainted with it All such ordinary Professions do imply this limitation This is the truth so far as I know my own heart And if it were not lawful to go on this ground I must give up almost all my duties For I finde so great darkness in my own heart and strangeness to my self that it is few things that I say of my own heart which I can speak with such assurance as this When Christ commanded me Matth. 5.24 to Leave my gift before the Altar and go my way and first be reconciled to my Brother and then come and offer my gift as I am uncertain when my Brother's minde is reconciled to me so if I should never offer my gift till I had full assurance that my own minde is sincerely reconciled to him perhaps I might sometime be put upon a long forberance For many a one that can say I know nothing by my self is yet so conscious of the falsness of his heart that he is forced to add yet am I not thereby justified and I judge not my own self c. Christ hath told us that God will not forgive us unless we truly repent and believe and from our heart forgive one another If none may thank God for remitting their sins till they have undoubting assurance of all this God would have little thanks for forgiveness Then the scruples of those that reject singing Psalms would turn off almost all Who durst say or sing Psal 116.1 I love the Lord c. Psal. 119.10 with my whole heart have I sought thee c. Psal. 138.1 91. 111.1 I will praise thee O Lord with my whole heart c. unless so few as would make but small melody Many particulars might be instanced in to shew that this ground would evacuate most duties 3. As Mr. Blake is uncertain of every one of his hearers that seeketh Sacraments whether he have indeed a Dogmatical faith or not so I doubt he would Baptize but few Children in comparison of what he doth if none should seek it but those Parents which are undoubtingly certain that they do truly Believe with that Dogmatical faith 1. Certain I am upon much sad tryal that a great number of the Parishioners that have long been our constant hearers and have presented many Children to Baptism have not a Dogmatical faith it self as to the essentials of the Christian Religion For many tell me that they Believe not that the Son or the Holy Ghost is God or that any one hath suffered for us or made satisfaction for our sins and that they trust only in Gods mercy and their praying and amendment for Pardon 2. I meet with the most humble Godly learned and judicious men of my acquaintance who manifest more doubtfulness about the Dogmatical part or Assenting Act of their faith then any other or at least their doubt of the rest is most here grounded because they doubt of their truth in this And though they are comforted in this consideration that even Assent is imperfect in the Saints on earth and mixt with doubtings and that they lament their
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
Eternity The latter is not properly in God at all For he changeth not his minde nor Remitteth any Punishing Purpose or secret Resolution or thoughts which he had before and if he did that would not dissolve the Guilt that is the obligation to Punishment without an outgoing word from God But yet after the manner of weak man this last sort of Mental Pardon may from the Effect to the Affect be ascribed Denominatively to God But then as it is but Denominatively so that Denomination must then begin when the Law of Grace or Promise doth Pardon and Absolve for then only doth the ground of that Denomination begin though nothing Real do begin in God And it is worth the noting also how angerly this man doth tell us that neither Dr. Twiss nor any that ever was taught or Catechized understandingly in the Church will deny or is ignorant of this kinde of Pardon or Justification in Law-sense which we maintain And yet that Mr. Blake will not be perswaded of any such thing to this day but disputeth confidently against that which we are so chidden by Mr. Robertson for imagining that any well Catechized will deny Again tell me what a man should do to be of every learned good mans minde or to escape their censures And as these Brethren deal in the Press so do some others privately by words and Manuscripts The last week I received a creeping Paper against my directions for Peace of Conscience written by a Minister about the midway between Mr. Blake and me Though a Neighbour I know not that I ever heard his name before but once about 16 years ago who with the spirit and pen of Mr. Robertson and his like doth furiously fall on me to conjure out of me the Devil of Pelagianism because I say to doubting souls that If Christ be not yet theirs he maybe when they will or they may have him when they will whereupon to his Councils and Fathers he goes against Free-will This is a Minister of the Gospel and yet knows not that this is a Truth that almost all the world of Christians are agreed on and that Austine purposely defendeth and if it be not true what a case is the world in And his Reproaches are cast in the face of the Scripture that saith the same Whoever will let him take the water of Life freely Rev. 22.17 And Dr. Twiss maintains it at large that velle Credere is Credere but doubtless velle Christum oblatum is a great act of saving Faith And this man might read that I add withall as Austine doth that Though whoever will have Christ as offered may have him yet no man will so have him but by the work of special Grace But is it not a sad case when the Preachers of the Gospel shall defame and reproach the very substance of the Gospel as zealously as if mens salvation lay upon it I have given you now I think reasons enough to excuse me from wording it with such inconsiderate men To which I will add one other I am conscious of so much frailty in my self that I am likely to be drawn also to injure some of them And also I am not able to speak so cautelously but some words will be very liable to misunderstanding on which they may plausibly fasten their accusations To give you one instance In the Preface to my Confession I noted a sort of empty men that will not speak to men nor give them any reasons to convince them but only secretly behind their backs will carry it abroad that such or such a man is erroneous half an Arminian a dangerous man and if they speak to us we shall hear but these general charges of Error To these I said I might expect they should be more Judicious studied impartial illuminate sincere or at lest the chief of these before I should value their bare Judgements and Censures without their Reasons professing withall that as I doubted not but there are multitudes of Labourers in Gods harvest with whom in these respects I am unworthy to be named so the Judgement of these I would value that is so far as to suspect anything which they are against and silence it at least till Evidence be very cogent So that I never mentioned the Qualifications of men that write or dispute against me but only of those that look I should be swayed by their Censures without Arguments This was my very mind of which I desire you to observe the words themselves But no where doth Dr. Owen and Mr. Blake so take me up as here mistakingly supposing that I spoke of those that should Write or Argue against me and that I require all these Qualifications in them No I will hear Scripture and Reason from a Childe but I will not be swayed by the Judgement and Censures of a Childe Yet here the one of them talks of the terrible conditions that I impose upon my Answerer and the other Mr. Blake comes on with intimations as if my words implyed that I take my self for more judicious experienced holy c. than all those from whom I manifest my dissent the Assembly and I know not how many feigning me do dissent from men even contrary to my profession These answers will seem as good to Readers that will not by collation make trial as if they were as good as any So will his citations out of the Fathers when among the several points in difference I desired one line from one Ancient to prove that his opinion was ever known to the ancient Church and for one of them the instrumental efficacy of Faith to Justification he doth perform it at large but how By a bare citation of Passages from others gathered up and that without the words and that only affirming that we are justified by Faith and not by Works So that if Mr. Blake bring testmonies of the Ancients sense that we are Justified by Faith and not by Works he will take these as testimonies that the Ancients speak for the Instrumental Efficiency of Faith in Justification And by such consequences he may make them say many things more that they never said indeed But we have shewed him a tertium another sense in which a man may be said to be justified by Faith without Works Sure I am that if I should maintain such a Justification by Faith without Works as many of those Fathers whom he quote's do assert in terms and sense even in the words before and after and in the places cited I should be more clamorously called a Papist than yet I have been at least there were more shew of reason for it Moreover the very naming of untrue Reports and Affirmations would be offensive to the guilty As pag. 664. he saith that I say Obedience is only the modification of Faith in the first act of Justification when I never spoke or thought such a thing but deny it to be existent as its distinct from Faith in that first act of