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
but as a wooden leg to the body I am almost confident that in turning over all his bookes he can produce but few such testimonies Had he said the Catholick Church instead of the universal I believe he might have found many I think that scarce any man will deny that the universal Church is visible yet Whitaker as largely makes good that the Catholick Church is invisible If I be now sent to my Dictionary to see whether Catholick and Vniversal be both one the one a Greek word the other a Latine I confess it is so in Grammer but not in their use of it that handle the question of the Church Catholick in this manner c. Answ. Wonderful Confidenceâ— Readers take warning by Mr. Blake and me and for our sakes be not over credulous no not in the most palpable matters of fact You hear Mr. Blakes confidence and now you shall hear mine Whether I can cite many such testimonies is partly apparent already Melancthon Calvin Beza Vrsine Polanus Paraeus Piscator Zanchy Junius and I think I may add an hundred more do promiscuously use the terms Catholick and Vniversal here and commonly joyn them thus Ecclesia Catholica seu Vniversalis I profess I mention that which mine eyes have many a time punctually observed and I further profess that I never to this day to my best remembrance did read one Author nor hear of one till M. Blake here speaks it that did distinguish between the Catholick and Universal Church and though I may not say that no man ever did so as having not read all yet I will say I do not believe that ever one reputed wise and Orthodox did so and I think Mr. Blake would have proved it from some one if he could I take this therefore to be a most injurious reproach to our Divines Name us one man if you can that ever was guilty of this ridiculous distinction yea or one Papist that had the front to charge them with such a thing It is well known that our elder Reformers use to plead against the Papist that particular Churches are visible but that Ecclesia Catholica seu Vniversalis is invisible though you stick not to say that scarce any man will deny the Universal Church to be visible and that our latter Divines do speak more cautelously and say that both particular and Universal Church are quoad formam externam visible and yet both are well reconcileable in sence but your dinstinction I never met with before Pag. 156. I must profess that in perusing all Mr. Blake's book I found but one place that at the first reading might seem to an impartial man of intellectuals no stronger than mine to be a successful confutation of any one of my Arguments and that is the next where repeating my Argument that the distribution of the Church into visible and invisible is but of a subject into diverse adjuncts therefore the members that are meerly visible are indeed no part c because adjuncts are no part of the essence he answers The consequence might as fairly have bin that these members which are invisible are no parts c. I confess at the first view its a pausible answer but open it and the inside is no better than the rest For my argument takes the adjunct as conjunct with the reason of the denomination and Invisible is not a real adjunct but a negative denomination and so the argument is thus The Church is called Invisible from its internal essential form which is invisible and it s called visible but from its external accidental form which is visible therefore those Members that are meerly visible note I said Meerly are but Equivocally called members of the Church because they participate only of the accidental form and not at all of the essential Thus argue the Protestants ordinarily against Bellarmine And now where is Mr. Blakes splendid answer Invisibility is but an adjunct no more than visibility true and not so much neither But the Reason of the denomination or the thing denominated Invisible is that which Protestants call the essence and that called visible is but an Accident in their account Whereas pag. 157. you take the Church to be an integrum and that the meerly visible Members are parts yea and the visible to be the Church most properly it is notorious that you side with the Papists therein against the stream of Protestant Divines Though the thing it self I shall not now debate it being meerly a Controversie de nomine that we have in hand and I mention the words of Divines because that custom is the Master of speech and therefore have no better meanes that I know of to decide such kind of Controversies As to what you say pag. 132. I reply again that which is Real may have an equivocal name and men will know this yea and Children too when you have talkt your utmost And as to what you say page 139.140 about Equivocal Covenanting I say as I did of Faith Take Covenanting in General and so a wicked man doth properly Covenant ex parte sui with his tongue But take it for the Christian Covenanting which entitleth to baptism and denominateth us Christians which is a consent to Gods terms on which he offers Christ and life and so all the covenantings of the ungodly are but equivocally called Covenanting with God in Christ If you will not believe me at least regard Dr. Kendals long dispute on such a point in his second volume on a mistake intended against me and answer him before you persevere And as for Gods act of Covenanting with them I say He is not actually in Covenant with them or obliged to them but only still doth offer them his Covenant Reader I suppose I should do but an unnecessary and undesired work if I should thus give a particular Reply to all the rest of such passages as the forementioned in Mr. Blakes book And therefore having enough of such work already I shall forbear and here dismiss thee An account of my Reasons why I make no answer to Mr Robertson nor a more particular Reply to Mr. Blake or Dr. Owens appendix as they were given heretofore in a Letter to a Reverend Friend Though most of my Reverend Brethren that have written to me of that subject do advise me to forbear particular Replies to the words of others because the matter is so much obscured or disadvantaged through the verbal quarrels and they only desire me to handle the point of Title to Sacraments in some just Disputations and to take in that of Mr. Blakes which best deserveth a Reply whom I have obeyed in these Disputations yet because some few others are of a contrary minde I shall lay down my reasons why I do not yield to their desires which is not only because it is impossible to please men of contrary expectations and because they are the fewer but also because to me their reasons seem less weighty and the work which
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
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
profess the pure Religion and make it appear at least to the judgment of man that they are Godly in Christ Iesus this is an inseparable Mark of a true Church as we may see 1 Cor. 14.33 See further Mr Vines in his Treatise of the Sacrament p. 150 151. saith That the Separatists laid the foundation viz. That only Visible Saints are fit Communicants which is true as to the Churches Admission That real Saints only are worthy Communicants which is true too as to the inward Grace or Benefit And 151. There is a great difference between Christs real Members and Guests at this Table and as I may say the Visible Churches Members or Guests If he be a visible Professor of Faith unshipwrakt of capacity to discern the Lords Body of Life without Scandal he is a Guest of the Church And p. 205. Though I should rest in serious Professsion of Faith and Repentance which is not pulled down again by a wicked Life or scandalous Sin yet when a man lieth under the charge of our censure for some scandalous sin the case is otherwise c. Read the rest And p. 324 329. The Covenant of God with us is that all that believe in Christ that died and receive him for their Lord and Saviour shall have remission of sins c. Answerable to this act of God the Believer accepts of and submits to this Covenant and the Conditions of it viz. to believe and to have God for our God and thereof makes a solemn profession in this Sacrament giving up himself to Christ as Lord and Saviour restipulating and striking hands with him to be his and so binds himself and doth as it were seal a Counterpart to God again and not only so but comes into a claim of all the riches and legacies of the Will or Covenant because he hath accepted and here declares his acceptance of the Covenant The Seal is indeed properly of that which is Gods part of the Covenant to perform and give and is no more but offered until we subscribe and set our hands to it and then its compleat and the Benefits may be claimed as the benefit of any conditional promise may be when the condition is performed And lest you should stumble at that word I must let you know that the Will accepting and submitting to the Conditions is the performance of the Conditions required NB. And pag. 249 250 c. Though as to admittance which is the Churches part to the outward Ordinance he make Profession as I do sufficient yet to the question whether the Sacrament be a Converting Ordinance he concludes that It is not an Ordinance appointed for Conversion His Arguments are 1. Because no effect can be ascribed to this Ordinance which fals not under the signification of it c. as Vasquez 2. This Sacrament by the institution of it appears to praesuppose those that reap the sweet and benefit of it to be Converts and in grace namely to have faith in Christ and to be living members and if this be presupposed by this Ordinance then it is not first wrought by it 3. The Word is the only Instrument of God to beget Faith or work Conversion c. And he answereth the Objections of the contrary minded and to them that argue that the Lords Supper is a Converting Ordinance because its possible a man may be then converted he saith they may as well make Ordination or Marriage Converting Ordinances because by the words then uttered a man may be converted He citeth the words of learned Rich. Hooker Eccles. Pol. l. 5. pag. 5â—6 The grace which we have by it doth not begin but continue grace or life no man therefore receives this Sacrament before Baptism because no dead thing is capable of nourishment that which groweth must of necessity first live And for further Authority he addeth And to this purpose all our Learned Divines have given their suffrage And the Papists though they differ from us in denying remission of sins in this Sacrament in favour to their Sacrament of Penance yet they hold it to be an Ordinance of Nutrition and so do all their Schoolmen and so doth the Church of England The strengthening and refreshing of our souls c I need not number Authors or Churches It is so plain a case that I wonder they that have stood up in defence of it as a converting Ordinance have not taken notice of it There is an Army to a man against them and the antient Christian Churches are so clear in it So far Mr Vines Hooker in him Concerning the Distinction of Forum Dei Ecclesiae and its sense see that judicious Agreement of the Associated Ministers of Cumberlanâ— and Westmerland pag. 47. where they take notice of Mr. Blakes questioning it Since these Papers were in the Press I was told by a Reverend Brother that Mr Blake professeth to hold the Necessity of the Profession of a saving Faith as well as I and by one of his special acquaintance in the Ministry who heard me express my mind that Mr Blake's was the same I durst not omit the mention of this lest it should be injurious to him And yet how far the reporters are in the right and understand his meaning I am no further able to tell you but that they are credible persons For my part I defended my own Doctrine against the charge which in two Volumes he brought against it And I supposed he would not write so much of two Volumes against a Doctrine which he judged the same with his own And I medled only with his books and not his secret thoughts Whether I have been guilty of feigning an Adversary that took himself for none I am contented to stand to the judgment of any impartial man on earth that will read our books Surely I found it over each page that a Faith short of Iustifying entitleth to Baptism and I never met with any such explication in him as that by A faith short of Iustifying he meant A Profession of Iustifying faith And sure Faith and Profession be not all one nor Iustifying and Short of justifying all one Nor do others that read his books understand him any otherwise then I do so far as I can learn sure the Ministers that were Authors of the Propositions for Reformation of Parish Congregations Printed for the Norwich Bookseller understood him as I do p. 17. where they say thus Obj. 3. But a dogmatical Faith may entitle to Baptism as Mr Blake Treat on Con. speaks though there be no profession of a justifying faith repentance Answ. We cannot think so seeing the faith required to be professed before Baptism is such a Faith as hath salvation annexed to it Mar. 16.16 It is a Faith of the whole heart Acts 8.38 Repentance is also required to Baptism as well as Faith Acts 2.38 and the Church in the usual form of Baptism enjoyned the baptized person not only to profess the doctrine of Faith but
sequitur pontificem malum non esse câ—put ecclesiae alios episcopos si mâ—li sunt non esse capita suarum ecclesiarum Caput enim non est humor aut pilus sed membrum quidem praecipuum This put him on distinguishing and yet at last he could bring it but to this Dico episcopum malum presbyterum malum Doctorem malum esse meÌ„bra mortua perinde non vera corporis Christi quantuÌ„ attinet ad rationem meÌ„bri ut est pars quaedam vivi corporis tamen esse verissima membra in ratione instrumenti id est papâ—m episcopos esse vera capita c. ratio est quia membra viva constituuntur per charitateÌ„ qua impâ—i carent at instrumenta operativa constituuntur per potestatem sive ordinis sive jurisdictionis And what is this more then the wooden leg or silver teeth which our Divines compare them to But the new Papists since Bellarmine do see a necessity of a further distinguishing the Church as a visible political society from the Church as truly sanctified But that which we and all the ancients do make to be but the Profession distinct from the thing professed the body distinct from the soul the chaff distinct from the wheat the shell distinct from the kernel they make to be as the lower order which is the way to a higher as the Alphabet or lower Rudiments which are the way to Grammar as an apprentiship to a trade I mean as a state of preparation to a state of infallible salvation And because it favoureth their main design they seem to draw near to the same conceit which they were wont falsly to fasten on the Protestants viz. that there are two â—hurches one Political and visible the other regenerate Invisible And Bellarmine confesseth that some of them were of this mind in his time And all this stir is that they may advance their visible Church in the estimation of men thereby the more easily keep the rule in their own hands and exalt themselves above Scripture and draw as many as may be into their society and therefore they drive the poor ignorant Americans by hundreds to be baptized as we drive our beasts to watering or our sheep to be washed and in stead of staying till they make Profession of a saving faith with any seeming seriousness they make Baptism an entrance into the state of the Catechumeni which was wont to be the passage thence into the state of Christians that per fas aut nefas they may engage people to themselves under pretence of engaging them to Christ therefore it is that they so over extoll the visible Political state of the Church as Dr. Prideaux saith Lect. de visibil eccles pag. 128. Experti demum perciperunt externam ecclesiae pompam speciosos titulos apud instabiles plus lucrari quam non lectam vel saltem non intellectam scripturae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hinc ecclesiam ad ravint usque crepant Catholicam quam admissam statim restringunt ad Romae synagogam suco quidem veteratorio sed conspicuo satis ridiculo ut ex conficta ecclesia formeiur doctrina non ex veritate doctrinae reformetur firmetur ecclesia The chief adversaries therefore we have here to deal with are the Papists who over-magnifie the visible face of the Church make the faith of men unjustified to be true faith though not formatacharitate and make Hypocrites and and wicked Professors to be truly and properly fideles and members of the Church whom the Protestants affirm to be but secundum quid materially analogically yea equivocally called members or fideles and therefore they make Baptism to be an appointed means to admit men into this visible Political Church as into the ordinary way and passage to the state of saving grace or justification but not ordinarily into the present possession of it And therefore in conformity to all this they maintain that we must admit persons to Baptism upon the bare Profession of faith that is Assent with consent to be under the Government of the Church and the use of ordinances in order to be a better state For saith Bellarmine it is not Charity but Faith which makes a Christian which our divines admit as true in our sense of the word Faith which includeth the will and is proper to the truly regenerate but they deny it in his sense of it who maketh faith to be the only Assent of the intellect Against this adversary therefore I shall principally bend the force of my Arguments though to my great trouble I must be forced to deal also with a Reverend Brother of our own especially in answering his many fallacious arguments which he hath lately heaped up for that part which I must oppose 4. Before I can positively answer the question in hand I must premise these few necessary Distinctions 1. We must distinguish between a Profession of faith according to the Ministers sense of the words and a Profession according to the speakers sense 2. Between the Children of those that profess not saving faith as theirs and claiming Baptism on the account of some lower Profession and the same Children as owned by some other that do profess saving faith 3. Between the unlawfulness of Baptizing and the Nullity of the Baptism Those distinctions that are necessary for the answering of the objections will come in their places Upon these few I answer the question negatively explained in the following Propositions 1. It is not a Profession of saving Faith in the real intention of the Professor that we affiâ—m necessary but in the Apprehension of the Minister judging of the words according to their common use and acception For we know not the heart of the Professor and therefore know not certainly whether he intend those words as a Profession or not I do not mean whether he be sincere in his Profession and intend the thing Professed for that 's no part of the Profession it self but I mean whether he use the words which he speaks in the sense which they seem to us to import and which they are used in by those that best understand their common signification For example a Papist presenteth a Child to be Baptized Professing to believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost I know that these words according to the Scripture use of them signifie a true saving faâ—th but I am not sure whether the speaker do understand any more by them then a lower faith of meer Assent If I knew he meant no more I would require him to express a saving faith before I would Baptize his Child on his account but if I know it not nor have just reason to question it I must take the words as they are commonly used and seem to be intended by him and so if it appear to me to be a Profession of saving faith though I err and my errour be innocent it is my duty
Eph. 4.12 what Saints they were that were to be perfected and 5 3. what Saints they were that must not so much as name Coveteousness filthiness c. And 3.8 Paul professeth himself less then the least of all Saints But Paul never did nor would profess himself less then the least of Mr. Blakes Saints who are not as much as by profession in a state of salvation nor from under the curse and wrath of God He that pronounceth them accursed with Anathema Maranatha that loved not the Lord Jesus bids grace be with them that love him in sincerity 1 Cor. 16.22 Eph. 6.24 would not have pronounced himself less than the least of these excommunicate accursed ones And were I worthy to be heard I would advise my Reverend Brother to better consideration before he make such accursed Saints or Churches or Believers at least that are visibly so and that he would be cautelous of Canonizing those on whom Paul pronounceth Anathema Maranatha To proceed the Church of Philippi are called Saints True but what Saints such on whom Paul was confident that he which had begun a good work in them would perform it till the day of Jesus Christ to whom it was given on behalf of Christ not only to believe but to suffer for his sake who alwaies obeyed in presence absence for God wrought in them to will and to do they only communicated to Paul in giving receiving and they were such as bad cause alway to rejoyce Phil. 1.6 29. and 2.12 13. and 4.15 4. The Church of the Colossians are called Saints But what Saints such as had faith in Christ Jesus and love to all Saints and had hope laid up for them in heaven who were made meet to be partakers of the Inheritance of the Saints in Light being delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the Kingdom of his dear Son that is the Church in whom they had redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of sins being reconciled by the body of his flesh through death to be presented holy and unblameable and unreprovable in his sight if they continued in the faith grounded and setled and were not moved away from the hope of the Gospel whose ardor and stedfastness of faith in Christ Paul beheld in the Spirit with joy who were buried with Christ in baptism and risen with him through faith and being before dead were quickened with him and had the forgiveness of all trespasses having put off the body of the sins of the flesh who were dead and their life was hid with Christ in God and who shall appear with Christ in Glory when he appeareth Col. 1. and 2. and 3. If it shall be replyed that Paul spake all this of them in the Judgement of Charity or denominated the whole from the better part and the Profession of the rest I say even so also it is that he calleth them all Saints the denomination is on the same ground as the description is I cannot imagine what reasonable evasion can be made from this evidence The Thessalonians are consequentially called Saints in being called a Church of Christ. And what a Church and what Saints such as had the work of Faith Labour of Love and patience of Hope in our Lord Jesus Christ whose Election Paul knew who turned to God from Idols to serve the true and living God and to wait for his Son from heaven who delivered them from the wrath to come they received the word as the word of God which effectually worked in them that believed who followed the Churches in suffering who were Pauls joy and glory in the presence of Christ at his coming whose faith and Charity was so reported to Paul that he tells them be liveth if they stand fast for God had not appointed them to wrath but to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ. 1 Thess. 1 2. 3. 5. They were such Saints whom Christ would come at last to be glorified in and such Believers in whom he will then be admired even because the Gospel was believed among them therefore say not To believe the Gospel is a common thing short of saving Faith 2 Thess. 1. We see then what the Church and Saints at Thessalonica was The Hebrews to whom the Apostle wrote are called Saints Heb. 13.24 And he doth not groundlesly call them Saints for they were such as were made a gazing-stock by reproaches afflictions and became companions of them that were so used took joyfully the spoiling of their goods knowing in themselves that they have in heaven a better and more enduring substance vid. ult Heb. 10.33 34 35. They were such indeed as he saw cause to exhort to perseverance and warn of the danger of Apostacie and the best have need of that But yet though he so spake he was perswaded better things of them and such as accompany salvation and he gives his reason of it Heb. 6.9 10 11. And having said so much of the several Churches under the name of Saints I shall proceed and shew you what they are as Churches though this will after fall in in another Argument because it will be fittesâ— for all to lie together and then I shall refer you hither when this afterward falls in You may see by what is said what Churches all these were that are already mentioned and consequently what a Church is in scripture-Scripture-sense not a society of men professing a faith short of justifying but a society of men professing true saving faith yea so far professing it as to induce the Apostles to denominate them such as supposing them such indeed For as they knew some were such so did they not know the contrary by any particulars except those whom they commanded them to cast out as none of them The Apostle Peter writes to the scattered Jews that professed Christianity And what kind of Christians or Believers did he take them for Why for such as were Elect according to the fore-knowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit unto Obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. And Mr. Blake cannot say that this was a common Election or common Sanctification and Obedience and Sprinkling of Christs blood For it is added that God of his abundant mercy had begotten them again to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead to an Inheritance incorruptible and undefiled that fadeth not away reserved in heaven for them and that they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last times wherein they greatly reâ—oyced suffering the trial of their precious faith and having not seen Christ loved him and believeing in him rejoyced with joy unspeakable and full of glory receiving the end of their faith the salvation of their souls If all these people had not or professed and seemed not to have a saving faith I know not what words can express a saving faith nor
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
cannot do but upon weighty considerations 2. The Soveraign in this case hath the same right in Adult subjects as in Infants seeing they are all Vassals to him as their Lord. And yet it is manifest in Scripture that God will have the personal consent of the Adult before they shall have any interest in his Covenant Because when their Soveraign Lord hath all the right that is possible he leaveth them the power of their own wills And so as they have still naturally a nearer right in themselves than he hath which they cannot alienate so it seems they have in their children 3. At least this is nothing to almost all the world where the Rulers claim no such absolute Dominion and Propriety 4. God in Scripture requireth Parents and not Rulers to circumcise their children and to educate them And Joshua would promise for no more but himself his houshould to serve the Lord and bids the people choose whom they would serve Yet I will not deny but that a Ruler may use some sharp means to procure the consent of Parents in some cases And I also confess that this Argument though least insisted on hath in my opinion much more plausible appearance of strength and better deserves a further consideration than the great and common Argument of the Parents Right by such a Profession as consisteth with Notorious Ungodliness upon which most build almost all tâ—eir Cause â—astly I conceive that as a Governors Right is in the Common-wealth and main body of the Nation enabling him to Rule them in the fear of God so I will not deny but that he may call together the chief part of them or a Representative body and urging and procuring their consent he may devote them by a National Covenant to Gâ—d and promise himself to rule them in his fear And I would this duty and the Scripture Patterns for it were better laid to heart But still this leaves the Parent that nearer Natural Interest in his Individual children on which God hath pleased rather to ground his Promises and Threatenings to Infants The second Argument is drawn from Mat. 28.19 20. Go and disciple me all Nations baptizing them From whence it is argued that the Infants of notorious ungodly Parents being Members of a Discipled Nation may therefore be baptized as such Members Answ. 1. If the nearer Interest of their Parents be not supposed necessary then this Argument makes as much for the Right of the child of any Jew or Heathen as of a Christian for they may be Members of that Nation which is Discipled 2. But they must be Members of it quà tales as discipled and that they are not till they are themselves Disciples The Apostles are first commanded to Disciple Nations and then to Baptize them on supposition that they be discipled therefore they must baptize none but those that are discipled They must endeavour the discipling of each Individual but if they prevail but with the greater and Ruling part it may be called a Discipled Nation and a Kingdom that is become the Kingdom of Christ but yet as it is but for the sake of the chief part that the whole is so denominated so it is only that part that is to be baptized seeing a bare denomination of the whole gives not right to any part that hath none of the ground of that denomination Nor did the antient Churches so understand this Text For when Constantine and Theodosius and other Christian Emperors had the Rule they did not judge that all their Subjects should be baptized The 3d. Argument is drawn from the Interest of the Church They say Those that are born within the Church though of unworthy Parents the Church may take them and present them to baptism Answ. How are those born within the Church whose Parents are no Members of the Church Of which more anon If the Parent be utterly unworthy and the child can have no Right upon his account then certainly he is not to be reckoned in the Church And if you mean that all those that are born among the members of the Church or where they have Civil Rule may by them be presented to Baptism then the argument must be the same with that before or so vain as to need no confutation Unless the Church will accept the Children as their Own according to the sense of the fourth fore-mentioned Title and then any one Member may better do it than the whole Church Having spoken to the five pretended Titles distinctly and shewed you how far they are any of them allowable and how far not I shall proceed to the second Question in the begining propounded viz. Whether that the Eventual Disposal of God by a Physical Act of Providence do give any Right to the children of notoriously ungodly Parents to be baptized And I need not say much to this 1. Because I know of none that plead this Right 2. Because it is but a non-injustum and I think scarcely so much as a Justum much less a Debitum that is here grounded 3. But especially because it is unquestionably evident that if this give any kind of Right it is but to a Possession ad libitum Donatoris after the reception and not at all to the first Reception And therefore it cannot with the least shew of Reason be pleaded before-hand to enable any mans claim to Baptism nor to enable a Minister to baptize any nor yet ex post facto to justifie the Act of the Baptizer or of the Baptized Yet how far it may prohibite any man to dispossess them of the state or priviledges of the baptized till God give them a clear warrant is worthy consideration 3. But it is the third Question concerning the third sort of Right that most of all concerneth us to discuss seeing as far as I can perceive it is this that our Brethren of the contrary judgement do intend to insist upon as discerning some inconvenience in affirming God to be any otherwise than conditionally engaged in Covenant with any Notorious ungodly men yea or any that are unregenerate To this therefore we must next speak The Question is Whether it be Gods command that Ministers should baptize Children of notoriously ungodly men Or Whether it be their duty Or Whether such Children be the Objects of our Just and Justifiable Action of Baptizing And I conclude the Question Negatively supposing that we speak both of Parents natural and civil and so that they come in upon no better account than the Title of such Parents as is before explained Here 1. I grant that if the natural Parents be ungodly we may baptize on the the Title of their civil Parents or Pro-parents I mean any that truly Own them as Theirs 2. Much more if any one of the Parents be godly though the other be ungodly 3. Also If there be a probable profession of Godliness though indeed there be not Sincerity it is our duty to baptize the children of such Because 1.
know that afterward when the Princes and Rulers were evil or negligent then the Church must needs be defiled and the Laws of God unexecuted And perhaps I may mis-interpret some texts of Scripture to a more gentle sense then others do or then is meet Of this let every man judge as he please it s no time now to call all such texts to account If any be offended at my charitable thoughts of the body of the Jews Gods only peculiar people on earth let them blot out these fore going considerations or take them as non dicta for I lay not the stress of my Cause upon them But the Principal thing which I would have observed is this That by Gods Political Law of this Common-wealth all Notorious ungodly persons were to be put to death yea and many far short of that degree I know it is a controversie among Divines what is meant by all those places that speak of Cutting off from his people Mr. Gilespie with others think it is meant of Excommunication Others think it is meant of the Magistrates punishing them with death or Gods doing it extraordinarily if the Magistrate should be negligent The main reason brought against this Exposition is that it seems too bloody But it must be considered how terrible the Law was and how God designed in it the manifestation of his Jealousie Holiness and hatred of sin If every man that did ought presumptuously might be cut off from the Church why not from the Living The Apostle in Acts 3.23 reciting that of Moses saith He that will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from the People However let that phrase mean what it will we have proof enough beside that not only all notorious Ungodly ones but also many Godly ones that fell into gross sin were all to be put to death From whence I argue thus If it was the Law of God that all such persons should be presently put to death then was it not the will of God that their Infants should have Right to Circumcision for their sakes no nor on any other account But the Antecedent is true therefore the Consequent The Reason of the Consequence is this Either thâ—se mens children were born before the parents turned ungodly or after If before then were they circumcised the eighth day as the children of the Godly If after then it was against Gods Law that they should be born much less circumcised For if Gods Law had been fulfilled the parents had been put to death we speak of both parents and then how could they have had a child All the doubt then lying in the Antecedent I shall from Scripture put it is past doubt Let us look over all the Commandments and see whether Death were not to be inflicted for the gross breach of them except the last which is secret in the heart For the first Commandment see Deut. 13. If a Prophet wrought wonders to entice to worship strange Gods or if the nearest kinsman secretly enticed them to it to thrust them out of the way which the Lord commanded them to walk in ver 5. he must be put to death If a City be withdrawn by such they are all to be put to death Children Cattle and Goods were to be destroyed and consumed Deut. 20.18 They were not to save alive any person no not Infants of the Cities that God delivered them to dwell in Lest they teach them to do according to their abominations Exod. 22.20 He that sacrificeth to any God save the Lord only shall utterly be destroyed The breach of the second Commandment is punished with Death Exod. 32.26.27 28. The Priests of Baal are slain 1 Kin. 18.40 2 Kin. 10.21.22 to 29. 23.5 19 20. Yea in one word he that would not be Godly positively was put to death 2 Chron. 15.12 13. It is spoken in their commendations that they entered into a Covenant to seek the Lord God of their Fathers with all their heart and with all their soul that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death whether small or great whether man or woman Lev. 24.15 16. Whosoever blasphemeth the name of the Lord was to be put to death So ver 23. Every one that did any work on the sabbath or defiled it was to be put to death Exod. 31.14 15. 35.2 He that smitteth or curseth his Father or Mother must be put to death Exod 21.15 Murderers Man-stealers Incestuous Sodomites Adulteres Wizards were to be put to death Exod. 21. Lev. 20. yea and those that turn after Wizards Any Prophet that shall presume to speak a word in Gods name which he hath not commanded him to speak or that speaketh in the name of other Gods must die Deut. 13.20 In some cases Fornicators must die Deut. 22. Every man that forsook God and broke his Covenant was to be stoned to death Deut. 17.2 3 4 5 6. Many the like passages might be cited but I will conclude with two or three of chief note for this purpose Deut. 21.18 19 20 21. If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son which will not obey the voyce of his father or the voyce of his mother and that when they have chastened him will not hearken unto them then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him and bring him out unto the Elders of his City and to the Gate of his place and they shall say unto the Elders of his City This our son is stubborn and rebellious he will not obey our voyce he is a Glutton and a Drunkard And all the men of his City shall stone him with stones that he die So shall you put away evil from among you and all Israel shall hear and fear Here I suppose it will be granted that it is the Parents duty to restrain their children from all ungodliness and that Gluttony and Drunkenness are but instanced in as part in stead of all the rest And if all children must be put to death that will not be ruled for good by their Parents then when they are dead they will beget no children who may claim Right to Circumcision for their sakes But if any say that this extendeth not to those that are from under their Parents tutorage or Government I answer First Sure the same sin deserveth the same punishment afterward from the Magistrate if they are obstinate against his pious precepts Secondly but to put the case out of doubt see Deut. 17.12 And the man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God or unto the Judge even that man shall die and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel and all the people shall hear and fear and do no more pâ—esumptuously To these Deut. 29.19 20. From all which it is evident that as Impenitency or Obstinacy in sin is the great cause of Excommunication now so was it then to be punished with Death
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
a distance about a matter of open fact I must still say that I hoped Dr. Ward would not have found a Second to undertake that Cause But this doth not intimate either that I never read that any was of his minde before or that I expected not that any should be afterward It s one thing to be of that Opinion and another thing as his Second to undertake it But I will now say more than that which you wonder at I must profess that I do not know of any one Protestant Divine reputed Orthodox of that Judgement before Dr. Ward and you though some Papists and Arminians I knew of that minde and since I finde Sir Hen. Vane maintain it and one John Timson in his Defence of M. Humphrey and now newly M. Humphrey in his second Vindication of Free Admission Let all Readers now come and wonder at your wondering and mine or at least the vast disagreement of our Judgements in such a point of fact All that ever open the books of Protestants come and judge betwixt Mr. Blake and me Dr. Ward and he do maitain That a certain kinde of faith which is short of Justifying faith giveth title to Baptism even before God I say that only true Justifying faith is the condition of our Title before God as given by him and warranting our claim but that the bare profession of that Justifying faith but of no lower doth make us such whom the Minister must give the Sacraments to if we claim them and so by it we have a Right to them before the Church and so far before God as he is the approver of the Churches act Mr. Blake saith almost every one of our late Writers appear for him I say I remember none of the Reformed Divines for them Nor do I finde that Mr. Blake himself hath produced any to that end but by meer abusing them Certain I am that the common doctrine of Reformed Divines is that sound believers are members of the mystical Church and that professors of that belief are members of the visible Church to whom we must give Sacraments But as for your third sort who believe with another kinde of faith or profess so to do it is not their use to take these as members of either or such as have right to Sacraments One more Objection I finde much stood upon which I had almost forgot viz The Sacraments are appointed for the visible Church therefore all that are of the visible Church have Right to them Answ. the word appointed is ambiguous If it mean only that Ministers are appointed to deliver it to men upon an outward Profession and Claim this we still grant But if the meaning be that Hypocritical or Unregenerate Professors have any Moral Donation or Promise of them or any command to claim and receive them in their present state this is but a bare affirming of the thing in question and so their Consequent is the same with the Antecedent What Mr. Galespie and Mr. Rutherford and many other Divines have said against it you have seen before as also by what Scripture-Evidence it is destroyed Ob. But t is said of the Jews that to them pertained the Adoption and the Glory and the Covenants and the giving of the Law and the Service of God and the Promises Rom. 9.4 Answ. 1. Yet will it not follow that all these pertain to all the Visible Church and therefore not to the Church as Visible The Glory that is the Ark and other signs of some Glorious Presence and the giving of the Law here mentioned with other Priviledges expressed in the next words were proper to the Jews 2. The Jewish Nation contained some that were truly sanctified and some that were not To the later sort was given the Law Covenants Promises c. providentially and by way of Offer God so ordered it that among them these excellent mercies should abide and to them they should be offered and if they had heartily accepted them they might have had a proper Title to the Benefits of the Covenant it self And it fell out that the seals were actually applied to them upon their pretended acceptance of the offer and upon their claim But to the former belonged the Covenants and Promises as the instruments of Gods Donation whereby he conveyed to them actuall Right to the Benefits But so it did not to the latter unless we speak of some particular promise made to this or that indiviall person or some temporal promises to the Jews as Jews and not as a Visible Church Yet may it well be said that to the Jews in general the Covenants Promises c. belonged not only because the Regenerate were Jews and the whole Nation was denominated from the better part sometime but also which is Pauls sence in that Text because it is not the foresaid proper Right that is here spoken of but the actual sending of this Light among them and the tendering of it to them and continuing it with them together with the success of it so far as that some were sanctified by it and others seemingly consented to it And thus we may say of England now in the general that it enjoyeth the Gospel and Sacraments c. in that they are among us and all men that are truly willing may have a saving title to them and the rest that pretend to be willing and are not do actually partake of the External Ordinance though to their own condemnation through their own default But this is no affirming that the unregenerate have a proper Title given them which may warrant their claim in that estate I mean to the Sacraments which are special Ordinances The Reverend Vindicator of Free Admission layeth down 13 Reasons to prove that the Covenant in the general Grace and external Administration of the Ordinances belongs to the whole Church as Visible and to the several members alike To which I say 1. that it belongs to them is too large a word without distinction to use in a profitable discourse I have elsewhere shewed that Covenant and Seals do belong to them in some sence and in other not and how far such are in Covenant 2. Note on the by that if this were granted it s nothing to Mr. Blake's main cause against me that a Faith short of justifying gives Right For no man was ever a member for a Faith short of justifying but only for a saving faith or the profession of a saving faith 3. Note that the stress of the Controversie is not Whether it belong to them at all but whether as he affirmeth to all alike Enough is said before for the solving of his Arguments More particularly To the first Pag. 6. How the whole Nation of the Jews were in Covenant is before declared more than which is yet unproved and also how little this makes for his End To the Second We easily grant that the Gentiles are graffed into the same Olive and are as much in the Covenant of Grace
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
9. § 1. But as he further noteth They that hold that we do uno actu plura ut dissimilia cognoscere must say also that praeter nomen conceptus formalis est idem aequivocis differt ab univocis quòd univoca habent eundem conceptum objectivum similem secus verò aequivoca quae habent plures dissimiles item differunt in conceptu formali quia aequivocus aequivalet pluribus c. These things about the nature of Equivocals being supposed I must next consider of the several terms now in question and examine them hereby as applyed to the Godly and the Wicked And first the Word Church in its general sense is not the thing that we have now in question Otherwise I should soon confess that in all Assemblies there is something common a Congregation of materials is common to them all And thus it may as well be said that the word Ecclesia is univocally spoken of a mutinous confused tumult Act 19.32 39 40. or any other common Assembly as of an Assembly of meer Professors But it is a Christian Church than we are speaking of which being Coetus Fidelium vel Christianorum is differenced from other societies by the Matter and by the End And for the first If bare Professors are but equivocally called Christians or believers in Christ then they are but equivocally Church-members nor a Church as consisting of such but equivocally a Church But the antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent The Consequence is undeniable because it is not a Congregation or Society in general but the Christian Church thus specified by its Matter and End which we speak of as is said The Antecedent I prove reducing the Paronyma into the Abstracts and first of the term Believers If Faith be but equivocally attributed to the bare Professors and the true Believers then they are equivocally called Believers But the Antecedent is true as I prove thus If the name of faith be the same and the ratio substantiae secundum illud nomen be divers then faith ascribed to bare Professors and to true Believers is an aequivocum But the Antecedent is true as is most apparent For that its the same name Faith Belief Believers we are agreed And that it is not the thing in both that is thus named I think we are also agreed For in one sort it is a true saving Faith that is called by the name of Faith and in the other it is no faith at all but the bare verbal Profession of that faith which they have not And I hope we are agreed that faith and the Profession of Faith are not the same thing Object But though this hold as to bare Professors or meer Hypocrites that have no faith yet it will not hold of these that have a faith short of Justifying Answ. 1. It cannot be denied that bare Professors of saving Faith are visible members of the Church though they have no faith at all therefore it must be granted of all them that they are but equivocally Believers and of them is our question 2. I have before proved that it is this profession of a saving faith that constituteth a visible member and therefore all such and only such with their seed are visible members and that it is not the reality of any faith special or common that constituteth a visible member For that which makes visible must it self be visible But so is neither a special nor a common faith for no man knoweth it in another So that à quatenus ad omne à forma ad nomen it is plain that all Professors and none but Professors are visible Members and that if any have the Faith professed special or common that makes them not visible Members but the profession of Faith whether they have it or not So that it plainly followeth that a visible Member qua talis is denominated a Believer only equivocally 3. And if they be denominated Believers ab ipsa fide scil that which is short of Justifying yet its plain that this faith it self is not the same with that of sound Believers no not of the same species Mr. Blake himself being Judge who so keenly girds me for making saving and common faith to differ but in degree when in the very writings that he must fetch the slander from I again and again profess that they differ morally in fâ—ecie If then his lower faith and saving faith do so much differ then there is not the same ratio substantiae secundum illud nomen For I have not yet found that it is a Generical Nature common to both which he supposeth signified by the word faith in our Question much less that Church-membership is constituted by such a thing But if he should come to that I must first desire him to describe that Generical nature and no more to lay it upon the specifical nature either of Dogmatical or Justifying faith and when he hath so done I doubt not to bring many more species that shall on as fair pretences put in for a place as participant in that generical nature as his Dogmatical faith hath done So that by this it is evident that not only the thing which constituteth men visible Church-members which is alwaies in the Adult a Profession and not the Faith professed is but equivocally called Faith but also that the lower faith is equivocally called the Christian Faith But the first alone sufficeth us to prove that visible Members as visible are but equivocally called Church-members because the ratio substantiae is divers secundum illud nomen 2. And it is as plain that bare Professors are but equivocally called Christians For the Ratio nominis in found Christians is true Faith in Christ as Christ but in the other it is only the Profession of such a faith and these are certainly divers And If you again carry the Question to Dogmatical Believers I answer as before both 1. That they are not the persons in our Question 2. That as such they are not members visible no nor mystical 3. That even as to them the Ratio substantiae is so divers as makes the name apparently equivocal 3. The same also may be said of the word Saints Holiness in the Regenerate is the hearty Devotedness and Separation of the Person to God as God Holiness in bare professors who are visible Members is but the verbal Devotion and extrinsick Separation And Holiness in the common Believer is but a half Devotedness and Separation and wanteth the Essentials which the Regenerate have So that it is not the same thing that is called Holiness in these â—hree and therefore the word Holâ—ness as to them is equâ—vâ—câ—l 4. The same also I say of Regeneration The true Believeer is called Regenerate because he is so changed by the spirit as to be as it were born again not of flesh nor of the wiil of man but of God and is become a new creature but the bare Professor is called Regenerate only
because he is baptized and professeth Regeneration and is entered extrinsecally into a new society And the lower sort of Believers is said to be regenerate but only because he hath some common work of another species so that Regeneration is equivocally spoken of these 5. So also is Justification It s clear that it is not the same thing that is called Justification in the one sort and in the other as I suppose will be confessed 6. The same also I may say of Adoption as is undeniable 7. And the same I may say of being in Covenant with God For 1. ex parte Dei with the Regenerate God is actually in Covenant that is as it were obliged to them but to the rest it is but conditionally which will induce no actual Obligation or Debitum till the Condition be performed 2. And on their own part the regenerate are said to Covenant with God principally because they consent to his terms and heartily Accept his Covenant as it is which Scripture calleth sometime their Believing If thou believe in thy heart c. and sometime their Willing whosoever will let him drink of the waters of Life freely so that the Regenerate mans Covenating is alwaies with the Heart and comprehendeth all the Essentials and sometime with the Mouth also But the bare Professors Covenanting is but with the mouth alone and the lower Believers is wanting in the internal Essentials so that it is plain that it is not the same thing that is called Covenanting in them and therefore the word is equivocal And then by this it is put out of doubt that they are equivocally called Church members Because the things forementioned that constitute their Church-membership are not the same If any Papist should here set in and with Bellarmine plead that it is Profession and Engagement to Church Politie that constituteth all Members and that the Church in its first notion signifieth only the visible Body and that Faith and Holiness or any thing intrinsick is not necessary to make a Member but only to maâ—e a living Member 1. I shouâ—d desire such to be at the pains to see what our Dâ—vines Amesius Whitaker and abundance more have said already to shew the vanity of this yea and its self-contradiction 2. Were it not done by so many already I would shew such from many Scriptures and Fathers that the word Church in our Christian sense doth principally signifie the number that are cordially congregate unto Christ and united to him 3. But whomsoever the word is first applyed to it is certain if it be applyed to both that it is equivocal unless you will say that it signifieth some Generical nature in common to both which cannot be as is aforesaid and if it were granted 1. It would exclude the spiritual aggregation to Christ to be the Ratio nominis contrary to Scripture and 2. It would exclude all Saints that have not the opportunity of a visible profession and conjunction with the Visible Body from being of the Church and so from Salvation Or 3. It would make two Churches specifically distinct which both Papists and Protestants do so vehemently disavow Having thus given my Reasons from the common description of Equivocals and the nature of the things why I say that meer Professors and consequently visible Members as such are but equivocally called Believers Christians Saints Members c. I shall next come to Authority and enquire what is the Custom of Divines in this case seeing that Custom is so much the master of Speech and it is only Protestant Divines that I shall alledge because it is for the sake of Protestants that I write to disswade them from siding with the Papists in this point For between them and us it is so antient and well known a Controversie that with men that are exercised in such Writings my allegations will be needless but for the sake of some confident men that have derided the common â—ssertions of Protestant against Papists as if they were singularly mine I shall annex some of the words of our most esteemed Writers by which these men may discern the minds of the rest wishing that such men would rather have been at the pains to have read the Authors themselves than to suffer their passions and tongues to over-run their understandings 1. Calvin in 1 Cor. 12. His interea duobus ep thâ—tis declarat quinam habendi sint inter vera Ecclesiae membra quâ— ad ejus Communionem pr priè pertineant Nisi enim vitae sanctimoniâ Christianum te ostendas delitescere quidem in Ecclesiâ poteris sed ex eá tamen nâ—n eris Sanctificari ergò in Christo oâ—ortet omnes qui in populo Dei censeri volunt Porrò â—anctificationis verbum sâ—gregation in signâ—ficat ea sit in nobis quum per spiritum in vitae novitatem regeneramur ut serviamus Deo non Mundo Unà cum omnibus invoc Et hoc commune est piorum omnium Epitheton Quod exponunt quidam de solâ Professione mihi frigâ—dum videtur ab usu Scripturae alienum est Idem Institut lib. 4 cap. 1. sect 7 De Ecclâ—siâ visibili qué sub cognitionem nostram cadit quale judicium facere conveniat ex superioribus â—am lâ—quere existimo Diximus enim bifariam de Ecclesiâ Sacras Literas loqui Interdum quum Ecclesiam nominant tam intelligunt quae reverâ est coram Deo in quam nulli recipiuntur nâ—si qui Adoptionis gratiâ filii Dei sunt spiricûs sanctificatione vera Christi membra Saepe autem Ecclesiae nomine universam hominum multitudinem in orbe diffusam designat quae unum se Deum Christum colere profitetur In hâc autem plurimi sunt permixti hypocritae qui nihil Christi habent praeter titulum speciem plurimi ambitiosi avari invidi maledici aliqui impurioris vitae qui ad tempus tolerantur vel quia legitimo judicio convinci nequeunt vel quia non semper ea viget disciplinae veritas quae debebat 2. Beza in Confess Christ. fid p. 34. c. 5. sect 8. De veris Ecclesiae membris Vera sunt Ecclesia membra qui characterem illum habent Christianorum proprium id est fidem Fidelis autem aliquis ex eo agnoscitur quòd unicum Servatorem Jesum Christum agnoscit fugit peccatum studet Justitiae Ãdque ex praescripto Verbi Dei. Nam quod ad rel quos homines attinet cujuscunque tandem sint statû◠vel conditionis non sunt numerandi inter Ecclesiae membra etiam si ut ità loquar Apostolatu fungereÌ„tur Sed hîc cavâ—ndum est nè vel ulteriùs progrediamur quà m par sit vel temerè judicemus expectandum enim est Dei judicium in detegendis hypocritis falsi fratibus Et pag. 32. sect 2. he shews unam duntaxat esse veram Ecclesiam and therefore he speaks here of that one Church 3. Junius
as in the body natural there are hairs nails evil humors and many other things which yet belong not integrally thereunto as proper members So if we regard not the inward and invisible Essence but the visible state or outward manner of the Churches being there adhere unto her many uncalled unjustified and unsanctified persons but it is only as excrements or ulcers For every true member of the Church is a part of Christs fulness and therefore must receive of his fulness grace for grace must be endowed with all saving and sanctifying graces otherwise how can it concur to the making of Christ full and compleat Vse 2. Refut Whence secondly may be inferred the gross Error of the Papists in avouching that external profession and conformitie outward subjection to the Pope of Rome are sufficient to constitute one a true member of the Catholick Church although he be a Reprobate an unbeliever an hypocrite so gross as Judas or Simon Magus a professed and notorious impious wretch that is utterly devoid of all spiritual life and grace whatsoever If he take up a room in the Church it matters not with them though he neither do nor can perform vital actions yet he shall pass for a true part thereof Pag. 19. He confesseth that they are united to the Church but by an outward Conjunction And was ever any man so deprived of common sense and understanding as to call a woodden leg a part of the body to which it was annexed as to term wens warts and moles sores and botches members of the body in which they were 33. The other is Mr. Perkins in whom the Judgement of other English Protestants of his time may be discerned Expos. on the Creed in Vol. 1. pag. 308. Hence we learn 1. That the Church of Rome erreth in teaching that a wicked man yea such a one as shall never be saved may be a true member of the Catholick Church c. But lest you should say that he speaks this only of the Invisible Church though our Divines say that there is but one Church which is Visible and Invisible in several respects I shall desire you to consider what he saith of the Visible Chuhch expresly pag. 303 304. The visible Church may be thus described It is a mixt company of men professing the faith assembled together by the preaching of the word It is called a Church of the better part namely the elect whereof it consisteth though they be in number few As for the ungodly though they be in the church yet they are no more parts of it indeed than the superfluous humors in the veins are parts of the body Again because the profession of faith is otherwhiles true and sincere and otherwhiles only in shew Therefore there be also two sorts of Members of the visible Church Members before God and members before men A member of the Church before God is he that beside the outward profession of the Faith hath inwardly a pure heart good conscience and Faith unfeigned whereby he is indeed a true member of the Church Members before men whom we may call reputed members are such as have nothing els but the outward Profession wanting the good conscience and the Faith unfeigned the Reason why they are to be esteemed members of us is because we are bound by the Rule of Charity to think of Men as they appear unto us leaving secret judgement unto God so far Perkins And so much for these testimonies By what hath been said it is evident that it is the judgement of the Protestants that reprobates and wicked men are not properly members of the Church but only Equivocally and that the Church is but one which in some respect is visible and some invisible and that it is denominated Invisible because its Essential form is Invisible and denominated visible only from an External Accidental form and therefore that those members that are only visible or have only the Accidental form of Members or are only of the Church as visible are but Equivocally members of the Church properly so called as from its essential form This they commonly maintain against the Papists I confess I think that somewhat more should be said for the explication of this point which is fullyest done by the Thes. Salmuriens vol. 3. but though I am not now delivering my own apprehensions but the words of others yet that the true Church as also Holynes Faith Christianity Adoption are Equivocal as applied to the Regenerate and unregenerate I wholly agree with the common judgement and am past doubt of it though Mr. Blake contradict it with Abhorence Bellarmine confesseth that many of their own as Johan de Turre cremata Alexander Hales Hugo Thomas c. did take the wicked to be but Equivocally called members of the Church And our Divines as Dr. Sutlive pag. 23.24 mention also Peter à Soto Melchior Canus and divers others et p. 29. And Bellarmine himself saith they are but Membra Mortua And for the judgement of the Fathers herein other Divines against the Papists have produced them at large See Dr. Sutlive de Eccles lib. 1. c. 7. fol. 28. c. 6. fol. 22.23 Now let us hear Mr. Blake Mr. Blake p. 150. Then it seems there is no Reality in such separations Camero tells us otherwise that there is a Reality in this Saintship by separation Ans. This is the first time that ever I heard that Equivocal terms express not Realityes Is there no Reality in a picture or a corps It sufficeth that the Reality is not the same that in a man and a corps is expressed by the same word Man Camero's judgement of our controversie is declared before in his own words Mr. Blake And it seems the Scripture is still under the charge of Equivocal speeches all over Ans. This anger flyes too high I beseech you make not the undeniable Equivocal terms which you finde in Scripture the Matter of a Charge It s is ill judging the Law that must Judge us Is there a Divine on earth that will deny that there are Equivocal terms in Scripture or that there are hundreds if not thousand numerical words that are such And do you not fear to make these the Grounds of a charge Scripture shall not go uncharged except it speak so as to please us In the highest matters about the Attributes and Works of God how common are Equivocal terms But do you indeed think that all Equivocal terms are Culpable yea or unnecessary or not intelligible I pray you distinguish between Jesuitical dissembling Equivocation and the laudable yea necessary use of Equivocal words when either the transcendencie of the matter the incapacity of men the paucity of terms the custom of speech c. hath made them fit or needfull Let God have the forbearance and justice in your interpretations as every writer and Speaker is allowed without any accusation the Scripture hath accusers enow already Mr. Blake I would know
they are ex parte creatura whence arise the denominations of God and doth not this Brother know that the highest Antiarminians on earth do grant this and none that I know of did ever deny it Yet doth this judicious Pedagogue before he understandeth what I have said and while Dr. Kendal himself contradicteth him in print fall on with such words as these pag. 7. I never did abhor with greater detestation and indignation the Principles of any man and the defence of them than I did that one most blasphemous Principle of yours and your defence of it about the Immanent acts of God in his knowledge and will as if they were or could be de novo c. All the rest is but to prepare the way for this sentence and to attend it and this is his Epistle And that you may see what impossibility there is of pleasing all men see what he saith of my Apologie against Mr Blake which cost so much on the other side p. 4 5. Though in the first three or four hours reading that morning of the first part of your Apologie to Mr. Blake I was very much taken with so much of a profound deep rational Judgement with such a clear and solid understanding with so great a height of a piercing wit as I did apprehend in some of your reasonings explications of some points by you holden forth there c. And so he goes on to shew that in the afternoons Reading against Dr. Kendall I struck down all the milk that I had given in the morning Many men many minds Even fair fall you Sir for I see you are a kind man when the fit comes on you and when I please you your commendations swell over the banks of common discretion But what shall I give you to make Mr. Blake of your opinion Or to teach me how I may please you both with the rest of the offended Another part of Mr. Robertson's task is to satisfie the world how ignorant Mr. Hotchkis and I are of the Hebrew and careless of it aswel as ignorant And I may undo the man if I should confute him here for he hath bound himself in a most solemn Obligation p. 82. that if he do not make it good what here is challenged against all the four eyes of us both that both of us have no eies at all to see with of our own therefore see nothing at all with our own eye in those points but all the dim sight we have it s only by seeing with other mens eyes c. then he promises to shut turn away both his own eyes from ever looking upon a book again whilest he breaths even the Bible it self which yet he would not do for a kingdom or his Life And should I be so unmerciful now as to confute this man if I could do it No let Mr. Hotchkis consider what he hath done in doing it himself He hath left him under little less then a solemn Vow never to read the Bible or any Book more Doth not this man think himself very wise in his zeal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. Hotchkis saith he had read over the Hebre◠Bible before Mr. Robertson was born And is it not think you an honest and sober dispute upon which he brings out his Hebrew when I had so fully explained myself in my Confession of which he is pleased to take no notice I still maintain that Punishment properly so called hath at least two species Paradeigmatical and strictly Vindictive and Nouthetical or Castigatory and so that Chastisement is truly and properly called punishment but not of the same species with the former vindictive or destructive punishment Now what doth this Learned Brother but over and over again so far lay by the ninth Commandement and the fear of God as to face down me and assure his Reader that I affirm and maintain the sufferings of the Godly to be not only Chastisements but proper Punishments yea Revenging Punishments for the satisfaction of God as a Judge And what should one say to such a man as this and how is he to be dealt with Proper Punishments I say they are because I maintain that Castigations are proper paternal punishments And are not all the Philosophers that ever defined punishment so far as I know agreed in it But is this to say They are vindictive satisfactory to Justice or more than chastisements If this good man would have made ostentation of his Hebrew or called for Scholars to his School let any indifferent man be Judge whether it had not been a more innocent and honest course to have done as the Montebanks and Lozenge-makers do to have put it into some weekly News-book that in such a street at such a sign there is a famous Hebrew School-master c. than to do he knows not what For Mr. Hotchkis and me the matter 's not great but he trode under foot Modesty Conscience Truth the Credit of his Profession the famous Translators of the Bible egregiously befriending Gregory Martin and his Rhemists and I wish he have not degraded the far greater part of the godly Ministers of England for want of Hebrew as well as us Nay how many can he name from the Apostles daies till a few hundred years ago that are not degraded by him in almost all the Church The Origens and Hieroms were so few that wo to the Church if it had no more And something may be in it to cut the comb of a Paedagogues insolency that those that were best at Translations were so bad Divines for all that as to the sense We had been sure all marrd if the degraded Augustines that were ignorant of the Hebrew had not been better Divines than Origen and Hierom were But what hath God bid or permitted this man to speak all this for nought No I hope that some will be stirred up by his language to a more diligent study of the Hebrew Text and that this good end may by the over-ruling providence be attained by it But me thinks he should not trust so much to his great Argument that he is unworthy to be Christs Messenger that takes the signification of the words upon trust For how doth Mr. Robertson with all his Hebrew know the signification of one Hebrew word but upon trust How knows he it but on the word of his Master that tells him so and what other way is there of knowing the signification of any Language whatsoever As for that about Mental Remission which he makes such a stir with I shall add this to what is said There are two things among men that are called by some Mental Remission 1. A purpose to forgive a fault even before it is committed when it is done 2. The actual turning of the minde from Anger and thoughts of Punishing to Reconciliation and Acceptance and the Remitting those former thoughts of Punishment The former is not properly pardon at all and is in God from
Eternity The latter is not properly in God at all For he changeth not his minde nor Remitteth any Punishing Purpose or secret Resolution or thoughts which he had before and if he did that would not dissolve the Guilt that is the obligation to Punishment without an outgoing word from God But yet after the manner of weak man this last sort of Mental Pardon may from the Effect to the Affect be ascribed Denominatively to God But then as it is but Denominatively so that Denomination must then begin when the Law of Grace or Promise doth Pardon and Absolve for then only doth the ground of that Denomination begin though nothing Real do begin in God And it is worth the noting also how angerly this man doth tell us that neither Dr. Twiss nor any that ever was taught or Catechized understandingly in the Church will deny or is ignorant of this kinde of Pardon or Justification in law-Law-sense which we maintain And yet that Mr. Blake will not be perswaded of any such thing to this day but disputeth confidently against that which we are so chidden by Mr. Robertson for imagining that any well Catechized will deny Again tell me what a man should do to be of every learned good mans minde or to escape their censures And as these Brethren deal in the Press so do some others privately by words and Manuscripts The last week I received a creeping Paper against my directions for Peace of Conscience written by a Minister about the midway between Mr. Blake and me Though a Neighbour I know not that I ever heard his name before but once about 16 years ago who with the spirit and pen of Mr. Robertson and his like doth furiously fall on me to conjure out of me the Devil of Pelagianism because I say to doubting souls that If Christ be not yet theirs he maybe when they will or they may have him when they will whereupon to his Councils and Fathers he goes against Free-will This is a Minister of the Gospel and yet knows not that this is a Truth that almost all the world of Christians are agreed on and that Austine purposely defendeth and if it be not true what a case is the world in And his Reproaches are cast in the face of the Scripture that saith the same Whoever will let him take the water of Life freely Rev. 22.17 And Dr. Twiss maintains it at large that velle Credere is Credere but doubtless velle Christum oblatum is a great act of saving Faith And this man might read that I add withall as Austine doth that Though whoever will have Christ as offered may have him yet no man will so have him but by the work of special Grace But is it not a sad case when the Preachers of the Gospel shall defame and reproach the very substance of the Gospel as zealously as if mens salvation lay upon it I have given you now I think reasons enough to excuse me from wording it with such inconsiderate men To which I will add one other I am conscious of so much frailty in my self that I am likely to be drawn also to injure some of them And also I am not able to speak so cautelously but some words will be very liable to misunderstanding on which they may plausibly fasten their accusations To give you one instance In the Preface to my Confession I noted a sort of empty men that will not speak to men nor give them any reasons to convince them but only secretly behind their backs will carry it abroad that such or such a man is erroneous half an Arminian a dangerous man and if they speak to us we shall hear but these general charges of Error To these I said I might expect they should be more Judicious studied impartial illuminate sincere or at lest the chief of these before I should value their bare Judgements and Censures without their Reasons professing withall that as I doubted not but there are multitudes of Labourers in Gods harvest with whom in these respects I am unworthy to be named so the Judgement of these I would value that is so far as to suspect anything which they are against and silence it at least till Evidence be very cogent So that I never mentioned the Qualifications of men that write or dispute against me but only of those that look I should be swayed by their Censures without Arguments This was my very mind of which I desire you to observe the words themselves But no where doth Dr. Owen and Mr. Blake so take me up as here mistakingly supposing that I spoke of those that should Write or Argue against me and that I require all these Qualifications in them No I will hear Scripture and Reason from a Childe but I will not be swayed by the Judgement and Censures of a Childe Yet here the one of them talks of the terrible conditions that I impose upon my Answerer and the other Mr. Blake comes on with intimations as if my words implyed that I take my self for more judicious experienced holy c. than all those from whom I manifest my dissent the Assembly and I know not how many feigning me do dissent from men even contrary to my profession These answers will seem as good to Readers that will not by collation make trial as if they were as good as any So will his citations out of the Fathers when among the several points in difference I desired one line from one Ancient to prove that his opinion was ever known to the ancient Church and for one of them the instrumental efficacy of Faith to Justification he doth perform it at large but how By a bare citation of Passages from others gathered up and that without the words and that only affirming that we are justified by Faith and not by Works So that if Mr. Blake bring testmonies of the Ancients sense that we are Justified by Faith and not by Works he will take these as testimonies that the Ancients speak for the Instrumental Efficiency of Faith in Justification And by such consequences he may make them say many things more that they never said indeed But we have shewed him a tertium another sense in which a man may be said to be justified by Faith without Works Sure I am that if I should maintain such a Justification by Faith without Works as many of those Fathers whom he quote's do assert in terms and sense even in the words before and after and in the places cited I should be more clamorously called a Papist than yet I have been at least there were more shew of reason for it Moreover the very naming of untrue Reports and Affirmations would be offensive to the guilty As pag. 664. he saith that I say Obedience is only the modification of Faith in the first act of Justification when I never spoke or thought such a thing but deny it to be existent as its distinct from Faith in that first act of