Church For we are Members of his Body and of his flesh and of his bones See also Ephes. 4 12 13 14 15 16. 1 Cor. 12.12 13 26 27. For as the Body is One and hath many members and all the members of that one Body being many are one Body so also is Christ. For by One spirit we are all baptized into one Body And whether one member suffer all the members suffer with it or one member be honoured all the members necessary to say somewhat to the point which I shall do with as much brevity as I can without injury to the Cause Because here are several Titles commonly given to unsound Professors which the Question doth take in and we cannot speak to them all at once I shall begin at the first and then the rest may easily be dispatcht yea the most that needs to be said concerning them will fall in in order to the handling of the first But what shall we do for a Judge or Rule for the determining of our Controversie Custom is the Master of Language and if any one will pretend to so much reason as to tell the signification of words from the bare Etymologie contrary to Customs interpretation the world will but laugh at him For how well soever he plaies his part he will but tell us how such words should be used and not how they are used and therefore he will help us to the right understanding of no mans words or writings thereby It s Custom therefore and not Etymologie that we must be judged by But Custom is here double-tongued The world is not agreed of the sense of Analoga nor well of aequivocals and univocals I must crave of the Reader that he will suppose here what I have already written about these terms to Dr. Kendall that I need not to repeat what is there The Controversie though but nominal is old between the Papists and the Protestants and the Protestants have commonly maintained all along since the Reformation that Hypocrites or meer Professors are but Aequivocally called Members of the Church The Papists have resisted them in this and yet been forced in the opposition to cut the throat of their own Cause Though it be the Defence of the old Protestant Cause here that is finally my Business yet it is the late opposition made against it by two Protestant Divines that is the occasion of my undertaking to wit Mr. Blake and since him Mr. Humphrey And yet with them I need not have much ado For if we are not agreed we know not well the state of our difference and therefore have happily made our selves uncapable of following it far by Controversie as being in the dark In my writing to Mr. Blake I use to say that such men are Church-members Christians Saints c. but Equivocally or Analogically as being willing to avoid all needless Controversie about words but sometime supposing that Assertion I use the common language of the Protestants and mention equivocally only I do not remember that Mr. Blake doth affirm that such men and true Believers are univocally called Church-members Covenanters Christians c. nor yet that he denieth it so that I know not what he is for but what he is against I partly know For the term Equivocal here he tells us that he abhors But he would take it as tolerable if I had used the term Analogical And if that might reconcile us it is but his more heedfull reading of my words and he will finde that I do ordinarily use it As pag. 62. lin 4 5. It is an imperfect Consent Analogically or Equivocally called Covenanting c. And after at the bottom of the page and therefore such are said as to the Faith Consent and Covenant so required but Equivocally or Analogically to Consent Covenant or Believe c. And pag. 64. lin 6 7. these men in proper strict sense are no true Christians but Analogically only And pag. 65. As he is Equivocally or Analogically a Beleiver or Christian so I yeild he is a Member of the visible Church c. These and other such places may satisfie Mr. Blake if the term Analogical will satisfie him Well! but yet the term Equivocal he abhors If so then he must either judge that they are Univocally called Church-members Saints c. or else that there is a third between Univocal and Equivocal The former he speaks not out the later I suppose he knoweth is denied by many Philosophers with so much reason as that it deserveth his pains for a better proof It s like he hath read it inter leges Aequivocorum in the Logicks commonly read in the Schools that Omne Analogum est Aequivocum as Fascic Log. pag. 21. alii It s agreed on that Vnivoca vel Synonyma are sometimes taken so strictly for Paronyma and sometime so largely as to comprehend the paronyma si careant homonymia and thus it is that we have to do with the term Burgersdicius divideth Genus in synonymum sive univocum homonymum sive aequivocum and makes all that is spoken inequaliter de speciebus suis to be Genus aequivocum But then he meaneth not by inaequaliter that meer inequality in the Degree of Excellency in the several species on which some Scotists affirm that Animal is Genus Analogum quoad hominem brutum because man is prastantius animal but cùm una species ab alterâ pendet and so the Genus doth magis uni alteri minus convenire aut uni mediatè alteri per alterum And so he concludeth that Ens si genus sit aequivocum genus est quia substantia magis est Ens quam Accidens imò Accidens non est Ens nisi quia quatenas pendet a substantia Yet this which is by the Schoolmen called Analogum attributionis is as like to belong to Univocals as any Analogum is as the same Author saith pag. 155. Omnium longissimè à synonymis absunt homonyma a casu quaeque causam homonymiae habent in nobis propiùs ad synonymorum naturam accedunt tropica ac imprimis analoga at omnium proximè quae ambigua sunt ob inaequalem attributionem And yet these doth he there again reckon among the homonyma or aquivoca dividing homonymie into that which is á Casu and that which is à Consilio and into that whole Reason is in nobis and whose Reason is in rebus among which this inaequalis attributionis is the highest which the School-men call Anologie For which Burgensdicius Keckerman and other of our Logicians with some contempt reject the School-mens doctrine of Analogae Scotus maintaineth that inter Vnivocat Aequivoca non datur medium in 1 Dist. 8. q. 2. For 1 Denominatives as divers of the Scotists shew at large and its past doubt are not media between them Nam licet non praedicentur univocè de suis subjectis quia de illis non praedicantur essentialiter sed denominative tamen sunt
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
by combinations of schoolmasters We confess also that the Church is but one as well as they that they are to make the same profession and use the same worship in regard of which they are called visible members and the Church a visible Church as by reason of their faith and the spirit within them it is called invisible as if we should distinguish a man into visible and invisible in respect to his body and soul which make not two men we confess also that there is an ineffectual faith of assent that goeth without a hearty consent and that many are to be admitted by us into the visible Church by Baptism by solemnization upon a bare Profession who have not faith either of one sort or other And we confess that such as so remain in the Church do live under those benefits and means which have a special tendence to their true conversion But yet we very much dâ—ffer in this The Papists make the Primary sense of the word Church to be of the visible Church as the samosius significatum and therefore they say that to be entred by Baptism 1. Into a Profession of assent 2. Into communion in Ordinances and 3. Under one and the same Government or external policy is all that is requisite to make a Church-member But we say that the first and famosius significatum is the whole multitude of true Believers that have the spirit of God and his saving Grace and that it is one and the same Church that is called first mystical as being called out of the world to Christ by true faith and then visible because of their Profession of that same faith and therefore if any Profess that faith who are without it these are members but secundum quid or equivocally as the hair and the nails are members of the body which indeed are no members in the proper and first sense or as a wooden leg is a member or as a body without a soul is a man or as the peas or chaff and straw are corn The body may be said to be part of the man when it is animated but a corps or body that never was animated is not properly a part the straw and chaff are called part of the corn-field though indeed but appurtenances to the corn but if there were no corn they should have no such title and when they are separable they shall lose it Moreover t is not a Profession of the same faith that the Papists and we maintain to be necessary to Church entrance For they require as necessary only a Profession of the Dogmatical or Historical faith of Assent aforesaid with a consent to subjection and use of Ordinances But we require a Profession of that faith which hath the promise of pardon and salvation They take their Church-entrance to be a step towards saving conversion and formed faith we take it quoad primam intentionâ—m Christi ordinantis to be an entrance among the number of the converted true Believers and that it is accidental through their failing and hypocrisie that any ungodly are in the Church and so enjoy it's external priviledges and that if we could know them to be such they should not be there it being the work of the Gathering Ministry to bring men to true faith and repentance and of the Edifying perfecting ministry to build them up and bring them on And the Papists themselves having received by Tradition a form of words to be used in Baptism which are sounder then their doctrine and which in the true sence do hold forth all that we say are put to their shifts by palpable mis-interpretation to deprave their own form They do themselves require of the Baptized a Profession that he believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost and when we prove that this is justifying faith and that to believe in doth signifie Affiance the Papists say it is but a naked Assent or Historical faith and when themselves require the â—aptized to â—enounce the Devil the world and the flesh they say that this signâ—fieth no more but that at present they profess so far to renouâ—ce them as to enter into the visible Church as the way to a future saving abâ—enunciation And when themselves do dedicate the person to Christ they say it is but directly to his Church that is to leave the world of Infidels and be numbred with the visible Church as the means to a saving sanctification And these notions they have filed and formed more exactly of late than heretofore to make the snare more apt to catch the simple still magnifying to the uttermost the visible Church-state as the only way to a state of justification and salvation But yet as our Divines have observed against him Bellarmine himself when he hath superficially pleaded his own cause doth frequently in the pleading it let fall such words at unawares that do destroy it and grant what we say As lib 3. de Eccles. cap. 10. he saith Verissime etiam dici potuisse ecclesiam fidelium id est eorum qui veram fidem habent in corde unam esse ecclesia enim praecipuè ex intentione sideles tantum colligit cum autem admâ—scentur aliqui ficti qui vere non credunt id accidit praeter intentionem ecclesiae Si enim eos nôsse posset nunquam admitteret aut casu admissos continuò excluderet yet I confess it is but his nudus ascensus or fides informis that he seemeth here too mean I pray you read over especially his 9. Chap. ibid. There pag. 227 he answereth one of our Objections thus Ad ultimum dico malos non esse membra viva Corporis Christi hoc significari illis scripturis Ad id quod addebatur igitur sunt aequivocè membra c. a multis solet concedi malos non esse membra vera nec simpliciter corporis ecclesiae sed tantum secundum quid aequivocè Ita Johan Turrecremata l. 1.57 ubi id probat ex Alex. de Ales Hugone D. Thoma idem etiam docent Petrus à Soto Melchior Canus aliiâ—qui tamen etsi dicant malos non esse meÌ„bra vera dicuÌ„t nihilominus verè esse in eeclesia sive in corpore ecclesiae esse simpliciter sideles sen Christianos neque enim solae meÌ„bra sunt in corpore sed etiam humores dentes pili alia quae non sunt membra Neque sideles aut Christiani dicuntur tales à charitate sed à side sive ù fidei profesâ—ione It appeareth then that the Papists are put of late to refine this fundamental doctrine of theirs from the soundness that it formerly had among themselves and to fit it more to their own turns And I blame them not because their whole kingdom lyeth on it and would be subverted utterly if the foresaid exposition hold which is so much like to ours It s a cutting objection which turned Bellarmine out of his rode At si ita est
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
which Justifies have right in the sight of God to be thus received This Argument me thinks might be of force with Mr. Baxter When he had urged it for proof that infants are servants and ought to be baptized he addâ— pag. 18. is not here direction enough to help us to judge of the mind of God whether infants are his Disciples and Servants or no Doth not God call them his servants himself What more should a man expect to warrant him to do so Men call for plain Scripture and when they have it they will not receive it so hard is it to inform a forestalled mind If God took such care upon that account that they should not be held in bondage under any of his People he takes like care that they should not be kept from the Society of his People ANSWER 1. The Major is true 1. distinguishing of Right as before 2. and of Servants and taking the word Servants in a peculiar sense as Lev. 25.41 doth The Minor also and the Conclusion is thus granted But Mr. Blake's Conclusions have a common unhappiness to be strangers to the question Doth it follow because I must baptize those that profess sincere Covenanting or Faiâ—h though they have but a faith of another sort that therefore I must baptize them on the account of that other faith By such an Argument I may as well prove that Infidelity or Heathenism gives right to Baptism thus Many Infidels or Heathens have right to baptism that is those that in heart are such have such a Right as yours pleaded for upon the account of an external Profession of Christianity Therefore infidelity or Heathenism gives them right If this Consequence must be denyed so must yours ARGUMENT VI. Mr. Blake Those that bring forth Children to God have a right in the sight of God to be of his houshold and to be taken into it This is plain especially to those that know the Law of servants in families that all the Children in right were the Masters and had their relation to him But those that are short of Justifying faith bring forth Children to God Ezek. 16.20 21. ANSWER This Argument is sick of the common disease of the rest the Conclusion is a stranger to the question Quâ tales they bring not forth Children to God in any Church sense ARGUMENT VII Mr. Blake Children of the Kingdom of God or those that are Subjects of his Kingdom have right in the sight of God to be received into his Kingdom This Proposition Mr. Baxter hath proved pag. 21. therefore I may save my pains But those that are short of faith that Justifies are Children or Subjects of this Kingdom Mat. 8.12 The Children of the Kingdom shall be cast into outer darkness Those therefore that are short of Justifying faith have right in the sight of God to be thus received ANSWER This Argument also hath the same distemper It s nothing to the Queâ—â—ion They are Children of the Kingdom visibly in regard of the profession of a saving faith and not of any common faith thaâ— is short of it Prove that or you say nothing ARGUMENT VIII Mr. Blake The Children of the Covenant have right in the sight of God to the Seal of the Covenant This is evident the seal is an affix to the Covenant Where a Covenant is made and a seal appointed there it is not of right to be denied But those that are short of faith that Justifies are the children of the Covenant Act. 3 25. The Apostle speaking to the People of the Jews saith Ye are the Children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers ANSWER Still the Question is wanting in the conclusion The same Answer serves to all It s a sad case that the Church of God should be thus used by its Friends to have such gross mistakes presented to the unskilfull which to use your own phrase to me pa. 145. do serve only to blind the Reader ARGUMENT IX Mr. Blake Disciples of Christ have right in the sight of God to Baptism as appears in Christs commissiion Mat. 28.19 But many are Disciples of Christ that are short of a Faith that justifies therefore those that are short of a Faith that justifies have right in the sight of God to Baptism If all that I have said pa. 208. of the Treatise of the Covenant to prove this assumption be too weak as I think it is not Mr. Baxters proof pag. 21. of his Treatise hath sure strength sufficient there he proves that Infants are Disciples because they are subjects of Christs Kingdom and what Kingdom he means he there explains himself I speak not here saith he of his Kingdom in the largest sense as it containeth all the world nor yet in the strictest as it containeth only his Elect but in the middle sense as it containeth the Church visible as it is most commonly used And therefore by the way not equivocally used Those then of this middle posture non-elect are Disciples ANSWER Still the same Error None are Disciples upon the account of your other faith but of either saving faith or the profession of it And as this and all the rest do look to the Other Controversies the foresaid distinction of Right applyed as is often done before is all that need to be said in answer to them ARGUMENT X. Mr. Blake Christians have right in the sight of God to Baptism This is Mr. Baxter's Proposition in the page before quoted and in reason is plain Christians must not be kept out of Christian fellowship This is Mr. Baxter's likewise in the place quoted he makes Disciples Christians and subjects of Christs visible Kingdom to be one and the same Therefore those that are short of Justifying faith have Right c. ANSWER Still the same disease You should have concluded that your lower faith gives Right None are Christians on the account of your lower kind of faith but only of saving faith or the profession of it ARGUMENT XI Mr. Blake All that ought to be admitted visible Church-mâ—mbers ought to be admitted in the sight of God to baptism This none can question unless they charge it as Tautological and it is Mr. Baxter's pa. 2.3 and the medium of that Argument which he makes the chief of all he useth But those that are short of Justifying faith are members of the Church visible Therefore those that are short of justifying faith are to be admitted to baptism The assumption is his likewise where he distinguisheth the visible Kingdom from the Elect and no man can deny it that grants the distinction of a Church into visible and invisible ANSWER The same disease still None short of saving faith ought to be admitted member but on the Profession of it What if I distinguish the visible Kingdom from the Elect Once for all I let you know that I take saving faith to be the constitutive or necessary qualification of a real or mystical member and Profession of
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
subjects as to their age against the Anabaptists nor the Agents against the Papists or others Nor are we now to enquire who are those Ministers that are authorized hereto or what is necessary to their calling and authority But supposing these matters already determined our present business is to enquire what that faith is that qualifieth persons to be the just subjects of Baptism or to be such whose Children may receive it upon the account of their faith or Profession I shall not needlesly spend time in seeking to make plain those terms that are already as plain as I can make them 1. What Professing is I have shewed in another Determination of the like nature and I think all understand that it is as much as palam vel publicè fateor 2. By Faith we mean not the Object of faith the doctrine believed only or primarily but the persons own Belief of the doctrine and reception oâ— Christ. 3. By saving faith we mean not to intimate that any faith of its own nature can procure our salvation nor that it doth of its own nature in specie as the nearest reason justifie a sinner nor is any way a proper efficient cause natural or political instrumental or meritorious or any other of a sinners justification but that it is that which the Donor of Christ and Life hath made the condition of our participation of his free-Gift and so doth morally qualifie the subject to be an apt recipient 4. Because there are many other Competitors we comprehend them all under the next words upon the Profession of any other faith that comes short of it 5. We enquire whether we either must or may Baptize such and suppose that the licet and the oportet do here go together so that what we may do we must do supposing our own call as no doubt what we must do we may do But yet that I be not mistaken which is a danger not easily escaped when I have done the best I can to be understood I shall further tell you what I mean by saving faith that is what I take it to be 2. What I mean by profession and what I take that to be 3. What are those other sorts that stand up in Competition with this as a sufficient qualification 4. And then I shall adjoyn some necessary distinctions 5. And so lay down my thoughts in some propositions 6. And then prove that which determineth the question 7. And lastly I shall answer the Arguments that are brought against it and for the contrary Claim And note through the whole that if I do at any time call this profession a Ttile it is in compliance with other mens language it being my own sence that neither the â—aith nor the profession is properly a Title which is fundamentum juris and so an efficient cause but only a condition of a Title 2. That if I say it giveth Right or Title I mean not efficiently as if we could give a Right to our selves but only that it is the condition which performed by us doth morally qualifie us to receive it as freely given 1. By saving Faith I mean an unfeigned Belief of the truth of the Gospel with an unfeigned acceptance of Christ who is there ofâ—ered to be our sufficient and only Saviour from the guilt of sin by his blood and merits and from the power of it by his spirit also and to bring us to glory in the fruition of God Or it is a sinners assent to the truth of the Gospel in the essentials and a sincere consent that God be immediately our only God and Christ our only Saviour and the Holy Ghost our only Sanctifier and we his people in these Relations I say immediately that is at present because if it be only a consent to be such hereafter it is not saving Or as the Assembly say it is the embracing of Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the Gospel Or it is a saving grace whereby we receive and rest upon Jesus Christ alone for salvation as he is offered to us in the Gospel It is in those respects that are essential to the Office o the Redeemer and Saviour 2. By Profession I mean in the proper sense that which hath something present for its Object or subject professed and difference it from a Promise which is onely of something future For it is a present Assent and consent that is to be professed though withal the object of this professed consent must be both the present and future relation to Christ viz that he be our Saviour and we his saved people from this time forth and for ever So that a certain Promise de futuro in the strength of grace may be said to be made in that a man must profess his consent both de presente et de futuro But still though it be to a future Relation to Christ as well as a presenâ— yet is it ever to a preesent as well as a future It is a present consent that Christ be presently my only Saviour or a present acceptance of him to be presently my only Saviour that I must Profess Note also that it is not a Profession that this faith of mine is indeed sincere justifying or saving faith that I speak of but it is a Profession of such a faith as indeed is justifying For many a thousand Profess that faith which is justifying and yet know it not to be justifying while they Profess it nor know not that they do with a saving sincerity believe Not one Godly person I think of ten thousand would deny consent that Christ shall be presently their Saviour and yet most of them know not that this consent is saving If you ask them Are you heartily willing to have Christ to save you both from the guilt and reign of sin and to glorifie you and they will say yea withal their hearts or at least yea if I know my own heart And yet at the same time may doubt whether they be true believers But as it is the having of saving faith that is necessary to salvation and not the knowledge that we have it so a man may Profess that faith which is saving and yet not Profess that he knows it to be saving and it is not the latter but the former that the Minister must expect from people in Baptism 3. We are next to consider what are the Competitors which we now exclude There are divers qualifications that are pleadded as necessary to those that must be Baptized and our question is which of all these is it indeed that may warrant a claim or warrant our Practice 1. The condition that some require in all that must be baptized is Assurance or firm perswasion that they are true Believers or have their sins pardoned by Christ by his promise which they now come to have sealed 2. Another condition pretended as necessary is not such Assurance it self because we know it not but a Profession of such Assurance to the
man which is corrupt accordâ—ng to the deceitful lusts of the flesh He that signally professeth his present Consent to be washed by the blood of Christ from his former filthiness and guilt and to lay by the filthiness of Flesh and Spirit doth eo nomine profess saving faith and Repentance But all that are baptized with the baptism of Christs Institution do by the very voluntary Reception of Baptism so profess therefore they do thereby profess saving Faith and Repentance 3. Quo ad modum It s commonly confessed by us to the Anabaptists as our Commentators declare that in the Apostles times the Baptized were dipped over head in the water and that this signified their Profession both of believing the Burial and Resurrection of Christ and of their own present renouncing the World and Flesh or dying to sin and living to Christ or rising again to newness of Life or being buried and risen again with Christ as the Apostle expoundeth in the fore-cited Texts of Col. 3. Rom. 6. And though as is before said we have thought it lawful to disuse the manner of Dipping and to use less water yet we presume not to change the use and signification of it so then He that signally professeth to dye and rise again in baptism with Christ doth signally profess Saving Faith and Repentance But this do all that are baptized according to the Apostolical practice therefore c. Object about Nullity But it will be objected that this Argument goeth so high that it will prove that all mens baptism is a Nullity who do not profess Saving Faith and Repentance and so that they must be baptized again Answ. 1. This concerneth the Opponents to answer more than me 2. There are no such persons that I know of and therefore they are not to be re-baptized We distinguish between the secret Intention of Professing and the signal Interpretative Professing which the Church is bound to take as really intended And so I say that when Christ hath Instituted baptism for such a signification if any man seek and receive that baptism he doth thereby Interpretatively profess to seek and receive it as such to the use and Ends to which it was Instituted seeing then all the baptized do apparently as far as the Church can judge profess Saving Faith and Repentance even by receiving baptism there is no room for the conclusion of this Objection When they bring us forth one baptized Person who did not make such a signal Profession then we shall give them a further answer 3. If they did by word of mouth say that they believe with a saving Faith these words are but signs of their minds and whether counterfeit or not the Church cannot tell And the same may be said of the Baptismal Action and Reception 4. Therefore the Church must not take the external Sacrament for a Nullity every time a mans secret Intentions agree not with his signal Profession for then we should not know whether ever we baptize any one But when it is discovered after that he had other Intentions that which was wanting must be yet done viz. his sincere Intentions or saving faith and not that which was not wanting be done again viz. The external Administration and Reception of Baptism 5. It is confessed to be essential to the Sacrament that the Receiving of the washing by Water doth signifie the receiving of the souls washing by the Blood of Christ. Now suppose I can prove it of abundance of Parents that when they presented their Children to Baptism they did not understand that the water signified the blood of Christ or the washing our cleansing by it from sin and therefore had no such Intention in Baptism would the Opponents baptize all these again Let them answer this for themselves and they shall answer for us Or if the Case of Infant-baptism be quarrelled at let them suppose that it were the Person himself that had been so baptized though I am satisfied that its all one Argum. 4. If we must baptize none that profess not their Consent to enter themselves presently into the Covenant of Grace with God in Christ then we must baptize none that profess not saving faith But the former is true therefore c. Also if the very Reception of Baptism be a Profession of present entering into the Gospel-covenant with Christ then is it a Profession of saving faith But so it is therefore c. This Argument was implyed in the former but the Medium that I now use is the Identity of this covenanting and the profession of saving Faith supposing the Identity of Heart-covenanting and saving faith it self The Antecedent I think will be granted by many of the Papists and it is the common doctrine of the Protestants and therefore as to them I need not prove it I confess some of the Anabaptists and some few others do question whether Baptism be a Seal of the covenant of Grace But the quarrel is mostly if not only about the bare word Seal for they confess that in sense which we mean by sealing and particularly they confess that we do in Baptism enter into the covenant of God and that it is a professing and engaging sign on our part as well as an exhibiting notifying confirming sign on Gods part The consequence is thus proved He that doth ore tenus or by profession enter into the covenant of God doth profess saving faith therefore if we must not baptize them without a professed entering into covenant then nether must we baptize them without a profession of saving Faith Only the Antecedent requireth proof And if I prove either the Identity of profest covenanting and profest true believing or else the inseparableness of them I prove the Antecedent But I shall prove the Identity or the inseparability yea I doubt not of the first which is the most full proof And here we must first consider what the Covenant is we are to enter 1. And it is confest it is the covenant of Grace and that there is but one covenant of Grace This Mr. Blake aknowledgeth for all the mention of an outward covenant 2. It is also a confessed thing on all hands that it is God that is the first Author and Offerer of the covenant that it is he that redeemed us who made the promise or covenant of Grace upon the ground of Redemption and that this is frequently called a covenant in Scripture as it is a divine Law or constitution without respect to mans consent as Grotius hath proved in the preface to his Annotations on the Evangelists Much more out of doubt it is that it is called a covenant before man consenteth as it is a covenant offered and not yet mutually entered In the former sense the word is taken properly but in another sense and for another thing then in the later But in the later it is taken Tropically viz. Synecdochically it being but a covenant drawn up and consented to by God conditionally and offered to us
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
the Disciples with their Infants and that it is Reconciliation Adoption and the Inheritance of salvation that are sealed up to Parents and children by Baptism Paraeus in loc saith Cum Baptismus sit signum faederis testificans baptizatos recipi a Deo in gratiam haud dubiè Pater filius spiritus sanctus sunt unus verus Deus baptizatos in gratiam foedus recipiens And he expoundeth this from Mar. 16.16 shewing that as the order is credere baptizari so that this is a true saving faith lâ—st autem credere Evangelio non solum assentiri doctrinae quod vera sit sed fiducia certa sibi applicare promissionem gratiae nos recipi in gratiam nobis remissa esse peccata propter Christum Commendat vero nobis fidem baptismum duabus rationibus una ab utili salvabitur h. e. vitam aeternam consequetur For my own part I have before entered my dissent to such descriptions of justifying faith as make it to be a Believing that our sins are pardoned but yet I agree with him and the rest in the main that it must be an Act of the will embracing or accepting an offered Christ as well as of the understanding and that the Profession of it must go before Baptism But I shall further prove the Minor from some other Texts of Scripture viz. that they are not Christs Disciples that Profess not saving faith or are not the Infants of such Luke 14.26 27 33. If any man come to me and hate not his Father and Mother and Wife and Children and Brothers and Sisters yea and his own life also he cannot be my Disciple and whosoever doth not bear his Cross and come after me cannot be my Disciple whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath cannot be my Disciple This is spoken of true Disciples in heart the first significatum by him that knew the heart From whence I argue thus If none are Christs Disciples in heart nor can be but those that value him above all and will forsake all for him if he require it then none can be his Disciples by external Profession but those that Profess to esteem him above all and to be willing to forsake all rather then forsake him But the former is proved by the Text The consequence is clear in that the world hath hitherto been acquainted but with two sorts of Christians or Disciples of Christ the one such sincerely in heart and the other such by Profession and the latter are so called because they profess to be what the other are indeed and what themselves are if they sincerely so profess And it is the same thing Professed which makes a man a Professed Christian which being found in the heart doth make a man a hearty Christian. Of these two sorts of Disciples people of God I spake as plain as I could speak pag. 4. of the Saints Rest But Mr. Blake never sticks when he meets with such passages to perswade the world that they are my self-contradictions and that they make for him as if it were all one to Profess a saving faith even the Acceptance of Christ and to Profess a faith short of saving But I perceive by this how he is like to use other Authors that cannot speak for themselves that would perswade men that I speak for him even where I expresly speak for the same cause which I now maintain against him John 13.35 By this shall all men know that ye are my Disciples if ye love one another Here Christ giveth a certain badg by which his true Disciples may be known If only those that love one another are true Disciples in heart then only those that Profess to love one another are Disciples by Profession But c. And that this Love is a special Grace and Inseparable concomitant of saving faith is manifest in that By this we know that we are translated from death to life because we love the Brethren 1 Joh. 3.14 Joh. 8.31 If ye continue in my word then are ye that is you will approve your selves my Disciples indeed If only those are Christs Disciples indeed as to the heart that have the Resolution of perseverance and those only his Practical conquering Disciples who actually persevere then only those are his Professed Disciples that Profess a Resolution to persevere But c. Ergo c. All this that I have said is no more then we have ever practised when in Baptism we renounced the World Flesh and Devil and promised to fight under Christs Banner to our lives end Saith Piscator on John 13.35 Si pro Christianis id est Christs discipulis haberi volumus oportet ut nos mutuò quà m ardentissimè diligamus c. Object Joh. 6. â—0 61 66. Those are called his Disciples that were offended at his word and went back Answ. 1. That 's none of our question whether Professed Disciples may not forsake Christ we easily acknowledge it But let it be proved that these did not before Profess a saving faith 2. This makes as much against the Opponent as me for it was the very want of a Dogmatical faith that they here manifested being offended that Christ should tell them that they must eat his flesh Object Act. 19.1 They are called Disciples that had not heard whether there be a Holy Ghost or not Answ. If they had not heard then it was not an article of necessity to their Justification They had been baptized and professed that faith which was saving when John baptized 2. This is spoken only of that extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost Obj. Any one is a Disciple that is willing to learn of Christ. Answ. No such matter In an improper sence you may so call them but not in Scripture sense where 1. A Disciple and a Christian are all one Acts 11.26 But every one that is willing to learn of Christ is not a Christian therefore not a disciple 2. A Disciple of Christ is one that will take him for the great Prophet of the Church which whosoever heareth not shall be cut off from Gods people and will learn of him as of the Christ. But so wil not all that will learn of him for a man that taketh Christ but for a common wise man as Socrates or Plato may be willing to learn of him and so may be his Disciple in another sense but not in the Christian sense as a Christian. 3. He that is sincerely a Disciple of Christ in heart doth take him for one that by redemption also hath Propitiated the offended Majesty and as King hath authority to rule him and submitteth to him in his whole office as he is the Christ For he cannot be truly a Christian that taketh not Christ as Christ and believeth not in him in all that is essential to his office and so to the object of our faith As he that believeth that Christ is God only or Man only is no Christian so he
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
necessarily as the other And I would fain know of him how meer Dogmatical believers are sure that they have a Dogmaticall faith 1. Many of them know not what that faith is nor what the essentials of Christianity are nor know not those essentials themselves as I before said from sad experience They might therefore be sure that they have not a true Dogmatical faith but not that they have it and yet they are as confident they have it as other men 2. Many that believe the same truths as others believe them but side humanâ and not divinâ and therefore have no true Dogmatical faith 3. Many do but half believe them and think they may be true they may be false and cannot tell whether they may believe them or not but indeed do not their unbelief being more predominant and therefore from it must be denominated 4. Many true saving believers are sorely tempted about the Truth of the Gospel and troubled with doubts and their Dogmatical or Historical faith is but weak and mixed with much unbelief so that they cannot tell whether their belief or unbelief be predominant and consequently whether they believe or not And for my part I see no reason but that it should be as hard to a true Christian to know whether he truly believe the Dogmata Christiana the Articles of Faith the truth of the Gospel as to know whether he truly rest upon Christ or love God above all And I know many learned wise and godly men to all appearance that are in doubt and long have been of the truth of their assent to the Gospel and are troubled with no other doubtings of their sincerity in any great measure but only as the doubts of this doth cause them Some of the ablest men that ever I knew have groaned out many a complaint O I am afraid I am an Infidel I cannot believe the Word of God! I know not whether I believe it or not A Turk may have some thoughts or motions that it may be true but if he be more perswaded of the falsness than of the Truth he is not to be denominated a believer Now if Mr. Blake will but tell us plainly how he would deal with these that doubt of their very historical faith and what he would have them do then I will tell him the like by them that doubt of their saving faith 5. Nay see what a desperate plunge he puts his believers to He requireth them to perform impossibilities They must engage to believe savingly that is they must profess a consent so to do And this they must know that they do sincerely or else they cannot do it in faith as the Objection saith when as it is a thing that no unregenerate man can do sincerely If he engage to believe savingly he doth it not sincerely but ignorantly or dissemblingly At least few of them know that they do it sincerely as themselves will here confess what then must these do in such a case 6 At least let the heart and light of a godly man and an ungodly be compared and I will appeal to Mr. Blakes own judgement whether a Godly man be not as likely to know his sincerity in saving faith as an ungodly man to know that he haâ—h truly a Dogmatical faith and doth truly engage to believe savingly I could soon shew such disadvantages that a wicked man hath to know his own heart even in this point that me thinks might easily determine this Controversie if it were needfull to stand upon it 7. It is the duty of the godly to give God thanks for his saving Grace for converting them giving them the Holy Ghost Justifying Adopting them c. Must none perform this duty but they that have attained Assurance of their Conversion Justification Adoption c Then it is not many that must perform it But if others may and must do this on the same ground they may and must perform the other It is the duty of every child of God to pray and praise God in the relation of a child in a special sense and to call God Father in a special sense and to plead those Promises with him that are the proper portion of his Children And must all omit this that have no assurance or subjective Certainty It it the duty of each member of the mystical body of Christ to love the Saints and assist them as fellow-members Must none do this that is not certain of his own member-ship If I should instance in all the particulars of Christian Duty that this case extendeth to you would see that this your principle reduced to practice would make buâ— unhappy work in the Church and would do much to the extirpation of a very great part if not the far greatest of the service of God 8. In all such Cases our Actions must follow the smallest prevalent perswasions of our Judgement though far short of full Assurance If a true Believer do think himself to be such he may profess himself such When so far as he knoweth his own heart he doth believe and repent he may profess that he doth believe and repent implying or expressing that he speaketh according to the knowledge he hath of his own heart We are so strange to our selves that if only Certainty must move us to Action I think we should sleep out the most of our lives He speaks sincerely that speaks according to his perswasion and as he thinks though he be not certain 9. In such cases it condemneth not to act in doubting but the same man that doubteth may act in faith Indeed if the doubting be so predominant that a man is more perswaded that he doth not believe than that he doth whether dogmatically or savingly then he may not profess that he doth believe that is he may not think one thing and speak another and speak or do against his Conscience And also if it be in an indifferent thing as about meats or drinks or indifferent daies where he is certain to be innocent if he forbear and uncertain to be innocent if he act then he must take the safer side and therefore forbear And the Apostles words will reach no further than to these two points He that hath unbelief and therefore doubing may say Lord I believe help thou mine unbelief 10. The thing that is necessarily required to the Sacramental participation is not an Assurance that our faith is sincere and saving but that it be really that Faith which is sincere and saving whether we know it so to be or not Many a man knoweth that he hath that faith which is saving and yet knoweth not that it is saving And many one knoweth that he performeth the saving act but through vain scruples understandeth not whether he do it sincerely And many think or hope they are sincere that yet doubt of it I have met with many that have lived in deep distress for want of perceiving the truth of their faith that have cried out
if as some suppose the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alo to nourish for so men may do by children that are any way their own But it is only the immediate Parents that we here mean though Festus saith that Juris prudentes avos proavos avias proavias parentum nomine appellari dicunt And though the word Parens be sometime taken pro Consanguineo And Hierom saith advers Ruffin lib. 2. That militari vulgarÃque consuetudine cognati assines nominantur Parentes But of this more anon The term Ungodly is it that needeth the most wary and exact Explication as on which the greatest stress of the Controversie doth depend It is not one only sense in which the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pius Impius Godly and Ungodly are used Some think that Pius comes from an obsolete Greek word now difused 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do refer and so that the primary signification is of one that worships God wiâ—h the Fat of Sacrifice as Abel did with the best of his service and not the refuse or lean Meliùs ad rem fuerit saith Mertinius Pius derivare à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod Cretensibus est Deus ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quia pius est qui Deo addictus est devotus eumque sequitur ut Angli Pium Godly tanquam Divinum Ità Objectum Pii indicaretur Si ad actum respiciamus idonra originatio erit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quippe quae est vox religiosae operationis Vide plura ibid. Our English word Godly is the most clear for Etymology and sense And for the right understanding of it we must consider 1. What God is and in what Relationn to Man he stands 2. What is required from Man towards God 1. As God is in himself most perfectly Good from whence some think in English he is called God so is he to Man 1. The Principal efficient Cause of all his Good 2. And the chief Objective matter and ultimate end so that in him alone can we be happy He is our α and ω our very All. he stands Related to Man as his Creator Governour Redeemer and Preserver 2. From whence Man is obliged to acknowledge God in these Relations whether Naturally or Supernaturally made known and to consent to them and to love and honour him as God though it be not perfectly which is now above his strength yet must it be sincerely even comparatively and superlatively above any Creature whatsoever He that doth thus is a Godly man that is a man that doth sincerely believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and is devoted to God Besides this principal sense there are some others common both in the defect and in the excess 1. Among Heathens he is called Pious 1. who is a devout honourer of their Gods though Idols 2. or who is merciful to people in misery 3. or who is an Honourer of Parents and Superiors or who is conscientious according to their insufficient light 2. Among Christians 1. Some call any man Godly that is zealous in Religious matters though so unsound in the fundamentals that he worshippeth he knows not what or so ignorant about Gods very nature and his relations to him that it is not God indeed as God that he worshippeth and though he be actually incapable of true Love and Devotedness to God for want of right conceivings of him even in those respects that are essential to the Object of the Christian faith 2. Some call a man Godly that makes a sound Confession and knows the Christian Doctrine and saith he believeth it though he notoriously manifest that his Will doth not consent that the God whom he confesseth shall be his God his Ruler and Felicity nor the Christ whom he confesseth shall be his Saviour on his own terms nor the Holy Ghost his Guide and Sanctifier 3. On the other side Many will call no Man Godly that is not noted for some eminent difference in Parts and Zeal from others that live about him If they see him neglect some Duties that he is bound to as not to come to some private Meetings that are used regularly and to Edification or not to Read or Hear so frequently or diligently as he should or not to Pray in his family which in some Cases its possible a Godly man may neglect or if he commit some sins which yet its possible a Godly man may commit they account him ungodly though possibly it may be otherwise in the main so that no man is by them esteemed Godly unless he go beyond the weakest sort of true Christians As for them that call none Godly but their own parties or sect-fellows I will pass them as not worthy our further mention Among all these senses it is the first in which we here take the word Godly so that it is only Christian Godliness that we mean which is a sincere believing in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost even with true intellectual Assent and hearty Consent from which heart-Godliness there follows that sincere Obedience to the will of God to first and second Table which is the proper fruit of it and Repentance after disobedience known It is therefore such a Godliness as is proper to them that have the promise of Justification and Salvation that we mean comprehending Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. Of the contrary to this only is the Question 4. By Notoriously ungodly we mean such as do evidently manifest their ungodly hearts 1. either by verbal professing it 2. or by their rebellious ungodly lives that they leave to those that converse with them no just reasonable ground to judge them in probability to be Godly but are certainly known by those that live about them yea by the Church if they are members of any particular Church who have an ordinary competent ability to discern to be ungodly persons that is not to believe in God as aforesaid but to be indeed contemners of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as all are that are not Godly though not all in a like degree They that are notoriously known to be thus ungodly or unholy or unbelievers are those here intended 5. By Baptized Parents we mean only such as have had the external sign joyned to a Profession of the Christian faith and Dedication to God and so have covenanted ore tenus with God by themselves or parents and not those that have been sincerely Dedicated to him and so have God re-engaged unto them For it is a contradiction for to call such at the time of such Devotedness notoriously ungodly and to say that they fall from it is contrary to the judgement of those whom we now deal with and therefore not to be expected Some do so define Baptism as to make it essentially to be Gods actual sealing and exhibiting
of an actual pardon to the person baptized But we take it not thus We speak only of those that have so formlaâ—y performed and received the externals of that Ordinance as that the Church doth justly take them for her baptized Members though yet they werr not truly united to Christ nor was God ever actually reconciled to them as his People So much for the Subject For the predicate we must first explain the term Right Concerning which I must refer you mostly to what I have said to Mr. Blake pag. 5 SECT 39. more fully than here I may stay to express my self 1. In the properest sense Right respecteth some Good which we have Right to and that Good is the matter of some Gift or other civil Action which may confer Right so that a man may afterwards claim it as his own or the Use or Profession of it as his Due according to the Nature of the thing and of the Grant 2. In a more diminute and less proper sense a man is said to have Right which is accidentially in his Profession without his unjust Usurpation though he know not whether he shall keep it a moment nor hath any civil right given him thereto 3. In a sense yet less proper a man may be said to have Right to that Action which it is another mans Duty to perform to him or that Good which another man is bound to do to or for him though properly he have no Title to it himself 4. In a sense though proper quoad relationis fundamentum yet Catachrestical as to the Denomination of the thing a man is said to have right to an Evil as to that punishment which according to Law and Justice in his Due or which he is obliged to bear According to the first of these senses every man hath a Right to or in Gods Benefits to whom he hath Given them by any Promise Covenant Grant or other Moral act which may be the Foundation of Right called a Title According to the second sense all those have Right to Gods blessing that have them in Possession through a meer natural collation of Providence without their sinful seizure As if you see a man by the way lie naked and cast your cloak over him and say nothing to him Though you may take it away again at your pleasure and assure him not of the use of it for a moment yet he hath right to possess it while you permit him Thus every Pagan hath Right to his Life and Time and Food and Raiment while God doth providentially vouchsafe them to him According to the third sense All those have a Right to Gods mercies to whom we are bound as Instruments to conser them though it be but by accident that we are so obilged and though God be in no Covenant-engagement to the persons nor give them any proper right or claim to the thing So if God bid me Give to him that needeth and because I know not all that need he bids me judge upon probable appearances Hereupon if a rich man go in rags and pretend necessity it is my Duty to give to him and so far this Rich man hath a Right to my Alms as that he is a rightfull Object of it as to the righteousness of my action So if God bid me forgive him that wrongeth me if he Repent and then direct me to judge whether he repent by the Evidences there being no other way and these Evidences being only probable and not demonstrastive here it is my duty to forgive him that repenteth not if he seem to repent and so he may have such an improper right to my forgiveness So if a Heathen seem to be a true Christian and yet dissemble I am bound to use him as a Christian and and so far he may improperly be said to have right to any Christian Ordinance which I am bound to dispense to him If he claims this Ordinance of me he sins against God and requireth that which properly and before God he hath no right to and which he ought not to claim but yet he clams nothing but what I am bound to give him upon such a claim You may see then that here may be three distinct questions according to this three-fold sense of Right For the fourth I will pass as not concerning our present business 1. Whether such subjects have any Right to Baptism by any gift or grant of God to themselves 2. Whether they have right from Gods providence putting them into possession of it 3. Whether it be a Ministers duty to baptize them And I think it necessary to handle all these or at least the first and last distinctly because that one dependeth on the other and we know not which is ordinarily meant when this question is put Only to the Explication of the last term we must speak a word viz. what is meant by that Baptism the Right whereto we are now enquiring after It is one question whether they have Right to the thing signified viz. Christ and his Benefits the pardon of sin and Adoption c. It is another question whether they have Right to the bare sign and the consequential Priviledges with the Church arising from their reputing such a man to be a true Christian. And another question whether they have Right to Both these Also it is one thing to ask Whether men have right to performance of their own part in Baptism in part or in whole And another Whether they have right to Gods part We make no question but every man hath liberty given him to do his own part entirely yea it is his Duty And so every Infidel is bound to bring his child to Baptism that is To cease his Infidelity and to Dedicate himself and child to Christ and seal it with being Baptized But this is nothing to prove that he hath Right to Gods part in Baptism that is either to the Washing as Gods seal and sign or to the cleansing signified and other Benefits conveyed by it 2. Nor is it any thing to prove that he hath a Liberty to do the latter and external part of his own duty without the internal and former precedent that is to be baptized before he consent to the terms of the Covenant As a man that is bound to consent in mind to any thing and promise with the mouth yet may not promise before he consent that is Dissemble or Lye I shall now briefly determine the Question as to each of the three forementioned sorts of right distinctly And as to the first I take the Question to lie thus supposing it only the external Baptism that 's meant Whether the Infant Children especially natural of men externally baptized but now notoriously ungodly have by any Gift of Covenant-Grant from God a right to external Baptism Which I determine Negatively They have no such right And herein the justest order it belongeth to the Affirmer to prove such a right He that brings his claim must shew his
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
these to be his people Deut. 26.17 who are yet in an unregenerate state Ans. By some way obliged you mean either conditionally and so he is obliged to all the present living Infidels that ever heard the word if not to all the world or absolutely or actually and for the later let Mr. Blake on the next page answer Mr. Blake on this page his words are Did ever man speak of an absolute tye in a conditional covenant whether the conditions be kept or no that therefore before mentioned which he calls the great question is no question at all It were madness to affirm that which with these limits he thus denies The Condition suspendeth the Actual Obligation or at least the Right given beyond all controversie Indeed if the stipulation were only in diem and not conditionally then the thing promised were presently Due that is to be hereafter received and the promissary had jus ad rem though not statim possidendi statim crederet dies etsi non statim veniret dies For in a stipulation in diem crescit dies quia statim debetur sed nondum venit quia non efficaciter peti potest But in a promise conditional there is no right in the promissary nor proper actual obligation on the promiser till the condition be performed And if Mr. Blake deny this he should have told us what it is that God is actually obliged to do on mens bare profession or common sort of believing But this he could not do without contradicting himself and the truth And for Gods avouching Israel to be his people I answer 1. He avouched them all to be what they were that is a people that had actually made an open profession of consenting to his covenant and had ore tenus taken him for their God 2. He avouched them to be his people also because that very many how many Gods knows were sincere in this covenant and the whole may be denominated from the better part especially if also the greater as our Divines use to tell the separatists that as a field that hath much Tares is called a Corn-field not from the Tares but the Corn which is the better and valued part so the Church is so denominated say they from the sincere Believers 3. He avouched them to be his people in regard of his peculiar choice of Israels seed to those temporal Mercies and priviledges which they had a promise of above other Nations of the earth as many such are known What benefits the Hypocrites had shall be enquired into anon Ob. 5. The Jews had much advantage and the Circumcision much profit every way Rom. 3.1 2. Answ. The great advantages of the whole Nation were principally for the sake of the Elect as the third verse following sheweth and many mercies the rest had by being among them which were not by a Moral Donation given particularly to those Professors but to the Nation denominated from the better part 2. The Unbelievers or Ungodly had much advantage by providential disposals planting the spiritual Church among them c. of which they had themselves no proper grant by donation and to which they could lay no claim that was justifiable before God And they had much accidentally from the Ministers Commission as is before explained And thus the ungodly may have still both Word and Sacraments and outward Communion with the Church and much of Gods protection and blessing for the sake of the godly to whom they joyn themselves by outward profession But this is formerly answered and so are all the rest of the material Objections that I remember in my Apologie to Mr. Blake and therefore I shall to avoid further tediousness refer the Reader thither and if he have read that and this I think he will not need more words if he read not in the dark to save himself from being deceived by any of the rest of Mr. Blake's Replies Only one or two of his Summaries I shall examine as I finde them set together pag 141 142. and pag. 551. Ob. 6. Saith Mr. Blake pag. 141. My third Argument to prove that a Faith short of Justifying may give Title to Baptism is to make the visible seal of Baptism which is the priviledge of the Church visible to be of equal latitude with the seal of the Spirit which is peculiar to invisible members is a Paradox When I put him to prove that this Paradox is mine in the generality here exprest he proves it from my own words where I say We give the seal of Baptism to all that seem sound Believers and their seed and we say the seal of the sanctifying spirit is only theirs that are such believers I am convinct beyond denial viz. To seem believers and to be believers is all one and seeming believers and real believers are terms of equal latitude And thus I am confuted as Mr. Blake useth to confute me no doubt to the full satisfaction of some of his Readers The Visible Seal may be said to be of equal latitude 1. Either in regard of a Title by Moral Donation which Coram Deo will warrant a Claim and Reception and so I say that saving faith and such a Title to Sacraments with the adult are of equal latitude 2. Or in regard of the justifiableness of a Ministers Administration and the persons claim Ecclesia judice and so they are not of equal latitude But saith Mr. Blake For his distinction which he hints here and plainly delivers elsewhere of Right in foro Dei and in foro Ecclesiae both to Covenant and Baptism I suppose considerate men will pause upon it before they receive it especially in the sense which he puts upon it I like considerate pausing Readers But le ts hear your Reasons 1. Saith Mr. Blake they may press him with his own Rule Ubi lex non distinguit non est distinguendum such a Right to visible Ordinances before men never granted of God I would fain learn Answ. But I know not what Teacher you would fain learn of Far be it from me to imagine that I can teach you in any thing But yet I may presume to tell you though not to teach you 1. That as is often manifested such an improper right may result from the Precept or Ministerial Commission to give the Sacrament to Believers or Professors of Faith that claim them without a Donation of Title to themselves to warrant that claim 2. That the nature of things must be distinguished from those Morals which the Law must constitute I am of opinion that we need not go to the distinctions of the Law to prove either that God and the Church are not all one but are really distinct or that the Understanding and Judgement of God and of the Church are not all one or that Gods Approbation Justification or Condemnation is really distinct from mans 3. There are some necessary Distinctions afforded us by that Doctrine which treats de legibus in Genere which we