other and they ever lye under all this Obligation You next instance in Prayer and conclude that As for Prayer there is no more ground or colour to make it a converting Ordinance than the Supper c. Repl. 1. A man that hath but common desires may be perswaded to ask for what he so desires Though he have no Promise of Acceptance you do not find him threatned with judgement for such a Prayer so it be not groslâ— hypocritical or wicked as he is for unworthy receiving the Supper without a discerning the Lords Body 2. When we exhort any man to pray for Christs pardon the Spirit c. we therein exhort him to desire them for desire is the soul of Prayer and the chief part of its essence Now the first of these desires which we exhort them to is conversion it self even that they would turn to God by a change of their wills and express them in Prayer 3. I can shew you where the wicked are commanded to seek the Lord that is by Prayer to express their returning hearts which implyeth their returning it self but you cannot shew where ever they are commanded to communicate with the Church in the Sacrament but in this order first to be converted and repent and so baptized and so communicate or if Baptized already to be Penitents first and Communicants next But if you would have all exhorted to the Lords Supper for conversion whom we are bound to exhort to Prayer for conversion you would do that which I confess I dare not do The 11. Argument was that Ordinance which is Eucharistical and consolatory supposeth such as partake of it to have part and portion in that thing for which thanks is given c. but c. To this it s answered that the assumption might as well have bin of the Word and Prayer which are Eucharistical and Consolatory Repl. 1. To hear a Sermon is not to give thanks 2. The Application of the Word must be according to mens various states An unregenerate man may take this for consolation If I be converted and repent and believe I shall be saved A true believer may apply it to another measure of consolation because I am a believer this Promise is mine that is secureth me of the benefit Now if the Impenitent and unbeliever shall do the later he sins such another sin as if he received the Sacrament which is an Ordinance Instituted for personal assumption and application of the general Promise 2. As for Prayer 1. To petition is not to give thanks 2. And for Thanksgiving it self an Impenitent man may not give thanks for true saving faith Repentance part in Christ and hope of Glory though he may for the mercy that he hath because he may not lye Now in the Lords Supper we must give thanks for our part in Christ and pardon and life through him or at least for the present Gift of Christ to us which we consent to accept It s added This Ordinance is not wholly Eucharistical c. It is for humbling as well as for comforting Repl. But if the other use be common to it with other Ordinances and here Inseparable from the Eucharistical then other Ordinances may be used to that end but this may not by him that may not do both because if he receive the Sacrament he signally Professeth both The substance of the twelfth Argument with its answer is spoke to before where Mr. Blake saith that The unregenerate may so far be suitably worthy for this work that he may know himself called to it and that it would be his sin to hold back from it and he may hopefully expect a blessing in it I reply 1. That he is called to it remotely that is first to repent and believe and to communicate we yield and that it is every mans sin that keeps off that is that comes not in this order But that he may lawfully come before this Repentance you never proved nor shall do I think 2. I would you could shew us on what ground he may hopefully expect a blessing in it True hope goeth not beyond the promise but the unregenerate have no promise unless the Arminians be in the right of a blessing on any Ordinance much less on that which they cannot prove that they may use till they are converted Yet Hope in a larger sense they may have where they can prove that God hath set them a work though they have no promise But that 's not here The 13th Argument is That Ordinance which was instituted for Communion of Saints is intended only for Saints c. It s answered by distinguishing of Sants as such by calling and separation for God or regeneration and that the Lords supper is the priviledge of the Church as visible Repl. Its one thing to ask Who may demand it and come there and another to ask To whom may we give it We may give it to all professedly separated for God None may ask or take it but those that are heartily separated to God But your Professor of a lower faith is neither of these and therefore may neither seek it nor may we give it him if he do seek it Whoever professeth himself separated for God doth profess saving sanctification which consisteth therein Self and Earth is highest in all the unregenerate therefore they are not separated heartily to God The 14th Argument was If Baptism it self to the adult is not regenerating or converting then not the Lords supper but c. This Argument Mr. Blake hath no more to say to but that this seemeth to suppose an opinion of Conversion by the very work done which he disclaimeth But here is no such supposition at all intimated and he should have dealt with it as he found it and not so have bawkt it especially when Mr. Gilaspie had so explained and confirmed it And because Mr. Blake thought best to silence Mr. Gilaspie's proof of his Assumption and I think it worthy the Readers observation at least that he may see how far Mr. Blake is from truth in his affirmations of the singularity of my opinion I shal here transcribe them Aaron 's Rod blossoming pag. 514.515 The assumption that baptism it self is not a Regenerating Ordinance I prove thus 1. Because we read of no persons of age baptized by the Apostles except such as did profess faith in Christ gladly received the Word and in whom some begun work of the Spirit of Grace did appear I say not that it really was in all but somewhat of it did appear in all 2. If the baptism of those who are of age be a regerating Ordinance then you suppose the person to be baptized to be an unregenerate person even as when a Minister first preacheth the Gospel to Pagans he cannot but suppose them to be unregenerate But I believe no Conscientious Minister N. B. would adventure to Baptize one who hath manifest and Infallible signs of unregeneration Sure we cannot
require a Dogmatical faith to Baptism Pag. 122. That therefore which he calls the great Question between him and me is no Question at all It were madness to affirm that which with these limits be thus denyes And I have no mind to accuse Mr. Blake of madness Seeing therefore he must either be of my mind or be mad I will make no doubt to think that he is of my mind in that and that his insinuating and oft affirming that I deny the thing there in question simply or without those limits proceedeth from that great injustice which temerity oft causeth in passionate men Pag. 389 1. In this case where the soul answers not to Sacramental Engagements Sacraments are but as outward shadows and bare empty signs and set out by the Spirit of God in Scripture with all their rites and Ceremonies as other Ordinances of like nature in the most low despicable and undervaluing words that is possible Baptism in the letter is no better with the Apostle than putting away the filth of the flesh the clensing of the hands the feet or face from dirt or filth is the same with it The Pharises washing of hands yea their washing of Cups Platters as low as it is laid by our Saviour was as efficacious and as acceptable Circumcision also when it led not to but from Christ is called by the Apostle by the name of Concision Phil. 3.2 Any gash made in the flesh or rent in the garment as well pleaseth Pag. 390. Sacraments in this case are only aggravations of sin and heightning of judgements In case of Vncircumcision in time of the Law and Non-baptism in these times sins were no more than transgressions of the Law but now they are breaches of Covenant Then they would have been meerly rebellion against Soveraignty but now they are Apostacy and Treachery 4. When Conscience answers not to Sacramental Engagements in participation of Sacraments men subscribe to the equity of their own condemnation and give assent to the sentence of death pronounced against them Read also his sect 6. throughout shewing how many sorts of men do forfeit their Covenant and the mercies of it And he concludes of them all Pag. 404. These are the men which Table subscribe the equity of their own condemnation and justifie the sentence of death pronounced against themselves These and many the like passages of Mr. Blake's do seem to me to militate against his own opinions some of the former Directly and the later Consequentially Yet do I not charge him with Self-contradiction for its like he understandeth himself better than I do But even from these last me thinks I have sufficient reason to demand 1. Whether it be not a mans duty to forbear Baptism or the Lords supper while he gets a fitter capacity rather than by the claim of them to subscribe his own condemnation or whether the necessary order of his duty be not first to believe and repent and then to claim these ordinances 2. Whether it be worth the while to write or preach to perswade men to offer such a service to God as doth but condemn themselves and is no more acceptable to God than the Pharises washing cups or than the cutting of their flesh or the rent in the garment 3. Seeing that saving faith is of another moral species than all other faith and cannot be had without a supernatural work of the spirit even a new creation Qu. Whether it be not cruelty in me to comply with that mans desires that would have Baptism or the Lords Supper without making a profession of saving faith or giving any sign of it himself and would engage himself to believe savingly the next minute though he do not now when I know before hand that he is most likely within one minute to break that engagement and so within a minute even before he stir out of the room to become a perjured or treacherous man that hath plunged himself into deeper misery and subscribed to the justness of his condemnation Were it not more wisdom and mercy to stay as was aforesaid one hour longer or a day and try whether he will believe savingly before hand rather than engage him to do it the next hour who doth not so much as pretend to any Ability to perform his own promise nor can shew any promise from God that he will give him that Ability either Absolute or Conditional And thus I shâ—uld have distmist Mr. Blake and his dispute but that having toucht on this last testimony it mindeth me to clear my self from some imputations of self-contradiction which Mr. Blake chargeth upon me And I shall briefly try whether ever I pleaded his cause or have put my weapons into his hand to defend it with Mr. Blakes Charge of self-contradiction examined and found groundless and abusive The first pretended Self-contradiction which I observe by intimation at least charged on me by Mr. Blake is pag. 114. My words first cited defend a Conditional Covenant made to the non-Elect and I say that this may be said to be sealed to some of them that is those that hypocritically professing true fath claim and receive the Sacrament Well! And what have I said against this Why this If men be taught once that it is a faith short of justifying and saving faith which admitteth men to baptism as having true right in foro Dei it will make foul work in the Church But where the contradictions Or what was it I wonder that occasioned the jealousie of it He that cannot or is resolved he will not see any difference 1. between a Reprobates claiming that which he hath no proper right to claim and a mans claiming that which he hath right to claim 2. and between sealing to a meer conditional promise where the condition is not performed and sealing to a conditional promise where the condition is performed or professed so to be as that there is an actual or absolute obligation on the Promiser 3. and between that sealing which is the end of the Sacrament and that sealing which is notoriously deficient through the incapacity of the subject contrary to the appointed end and use of that Ordinance 4. And between the profession of a saving faith and the profession of another kind of faith I say he that can or will see no difference between these no nor any two of these let him account me and call me a self-contradicter and spare not And I shall answer him when I have nothing else to do Another Confutation that I am supposed to give my self is cited by him p. 148. thus No Minister can groundedly administer the Sacraments to any man but himself because he can be certain of no mans justification being not certain of the sincerity of their faith And if he should adventure upon probabilities or charitable conjectures then should he be guilty of profaning the Ordinance and every time he mistaketh he should set the Seal of God to a lye I confess there is
description of the Covenant pag. 154. Foedius Gratiae est quo deus per fidem in Christum nos pro justis reputat ac proinde pro faciis Foederis quod in remissione peccatorum gratuitò imputatione Justitiae Christi consistit agnoscit Georg. Solinius Method Theolog. makes no other of the Adult the subject of Baptism but the Professors of faith pag. 245. and that either verè credentes or hypocritae pag. 244. Et in Exeges Confes. August pag. 823. Si à Deo instituta sunt Sacramenta ut generalis illa promissio gratiae de Remissione pecoatorum viâ—ae aeternae singulis qui Sacramentis legitimè utuntur peculialiter obsignetur c. At sacramenta in hunc sinem instituta sunt Rom. 4 Gal. 3. 1 Pet. â— Melancthon's Judgement is the same as the rest as is apparent in his Common places and in Sohnius Thes. Theol. ex Corpore doctr Phil. Melancthonis c. 19. pag. 59.60 61 92. Trelcatius Instit. Theol l. 2. p. 198. Materia baptismum recipiens sunt omnes soli qui probabiliter in foedere censentur Censentur autem tam adulti qui principiis fidei initiati ad Ecclesiam accedentes fidem suam poenitentiam apud homines profitentur tam infantes c. Many passages before and after shew that he as others take to be foederatus or in foedere to be proper to the truly Regenerate and therefore they truly say qui probabiliter censentur esse in foedere Jo. Ger. Vossius Thes. de Sacram. Essicac Th. 37. Disp. 2. p. 3.28.339 mentioning the Answers of the Reformed Divines to an Objection divideth them into two parts as not agreed in the point The first is those qui dicere solent eum qui fidem habet praedicationi Evangelicae virtualiter quidem salutem habere quia dispositus est ad salutem consequendam instrumento instructus quo gratiam sâ—lutarem attingere consequi possit c. And thus they confess that Faith goeth before Baptism even this Justifying faith which they call the Instrument but they think that Justification and Sanctification follow Faith and Baptism The other sort are they who think that the Spirit by the Word before Baptism doth not only beget Faith but also offer to Faith and conferr the spiritual Grace of Regeneration So that both sorts agree of the Precedency of Faith in the Adult And Thes. 42. Contrae haec objicitur à quibusdam quòd Abraham Justitiam Fidei habuerit ante Circumcisionem Rom. 4.10 quod item Cornelius gratiam Sanctificationis habuerit ante Baptismum Act. 10.2 verùm neque nos negamus Gratiam Justificationis aut Sanctificationis ab Adultis ante Sacramenti usum Fide apprehendi sed dicimus ordinariè ante usum SacramentoruÌ„ tenuem tantùm Gratiae gustum haberi extraordinariè autem posse etiam tum auctiorem esse manifestiùsque sentiri So that ordinarily some true saving grace antecedeth Wollebius defineth Baptism thus Baptismus est primum novi Foederis Sacramentum in quo Electis in Dei familiam receptis externâ aquae aspersione peccatorum remissio regeneratio per sanguinem Christi Spiritum sanctum obsignatur And p. â—21 he makes it as others do one difference between the Word and Sacraments Quod Verbo ordinariè Fides excitetur Sacramentis confirmetur And therefore Grace which may be confirmed must be before expected Luther Tom. 2. Pag. 439. shews that Baptism containeth the Profession of saving Faith In Baptismo est Promissio Dei offerentis nostrum VOVERE nihil aliud est quà m ACCEPTARE CHRISTVM qui offertur nobis Felix sanè votum quod non promittit dare sed tantum bona accipere acceptis adhaerere Alstedius Definit Theolog. pag. 137. Baptismus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consideratus est sacramentum in quo homo electus tam certò abluitur sanguine Christi quà m certò corpus ipsius aquâ aspergitur Gal. 3.27 Baptizari in Nomen Patris Filii Spiritus sancti est baptizari in cultum sanctae Trinitatis quidem ità ut Pater Filius Spiritus sanctus nobis promittant Remissionem peccatorum vitam aeternam nos vicissins illis promittamus obsequium Et Distinct. c. 27. pag. 129. Vsus baptismi est commuâ—it vel singularis Ille est respectu hypocritarum credentium There is no third sort acknowledged to have right to Baptism Bishop Vshâ—r in his body of Divinity pag 415. The outward Elements are dispensed to all who make an outward profession of the Gospel for in Infants their being born in the Church is instead of an outward Profession because man is not able to distinguish Corn from Châ—ff but the inward grace of the Sacrament is not communicated to all but to those only who are heirs of those Promises whereof the Sacraments are Seals For without a man have his name in the Covenant the Seal set to it confirms nothing to him 1. It is here apparent that it is the outward Profession of no other then a saying faith that he meaneth As also he shews afterward 1. By opposing such Professors as Hypocrites when have not the thing professed to the Elect and Justified as here he doth the half to the Corn and 2. by his Description of the faith professed The Church doth not only baptize those that are grown and of years if any such being bred Pagans be brought up within the pale of the Church and testifie their competent understanding of Christianity and profess their faith in the Lord Jesus and Gods pretious Promises of Remission of sins by his blood and their earnest desire to be sâ—aled with Baptism for the strengthening of their souls in this faith Quest Doth the inward Grace alway accompany the outward sign Answ. No but only when the Profession of their faith is not outward only and counterfeit but sincere and hearty c. Here then is no third sort that are hearty professors of a lower kind of faith Amesius Bellarm. Enervat De Necessit Bapt Gen. 17. Ero Deus tuus Semâ—nis tuiâ— Filii corum qui participes sunt benedictionis Abrahae sunt Filii Dei etiaÌ„ quum primò nascuntur c. 1. Regenerationem esse partem promissionum singulari modo ad fidelium filios pertinere forderis ipsius formula manifestè declarat 2. Filii Christi incipimus esse per fidem ante baptismum 3. Baptizantur propriè homines quia pro filiis Dei habentur non ut incipiant esse Filii Alioquin ratio nulla esset quare filii infidelium non aequè baptizarentur ac filii fidelium Et cap. 3. pag. mihi 53. repugnat haec distinctio of a faith before Baptism which is but a disposition to Justification that is to Sanctification and a faith after Baptism whâ—ch is an essential part of Sanctification which was Bellarmin's distinction 1. Scripturae quae fidem justificantem antecedere
have much fear of the condemnation of others Yet if it come not to a strong or violent presumption grounded on sufficient evidence we may not suspend or cast them out In a word it is a verbal profession seemingly serious and not again contradicted by a cross profession of word or action that is the evidence of mens Interest in Church-Priviledges particularly of the Baptism of their Infants Quest. What take you for a sufficient disproof of a verbal profession or a ground for such a violent presumption that a man doth lye and dissemble and is no Christian Answ. I mentioned you ten particulars before on which we may judge men Notoriously ungodly Look over those again and ye may see what to take for a violent presumption 1. A man that denyeth any Essential part of Christian Religion though we are uncertain whether he do it resolvedly and deliberately yet if he will not upon sufficient invitation reverse that denial and profess Repentance of it Or if upon a just call a man refuse to profess his Belief of the Chrâ—stian faith It is ground of a violent presumption that he is no Christian or godly man 2. Those that are not only unable to give any account of their knowledge of the Essentials of Religion but also do by their contrary answers when we put them but to affirm or deny shew that they understand them not and this often though its possible they may be amazed or oblivious yet it s a violent presumption that they are utterly ignorant of the Essentials And here I advise all to be very tender how they exclude people on point of meer ignorance if they 1. are but able in private to those that they are familiar with to give a tolerable account of essentials 2. Or if they answer truly with a yea or a Nay when you contrive the matter into your question 3. And if they be diligent in the use of means and willing to Learn and live uprightly And to this purpose consider of these things following 1 Fundamentals or essentials are but few 2. Many poor people are of such natural bashfulness or hesitancy that they cannot speak what they know 3. Specially when Rustical education increaseth it 4. And especially when it is in publike or to a Minister whom they reverence 5. There are indigested ruder Conceptions which may be found and yet not formed ready for expression even in some that can speak well We see some Ministers in Examinations too deficient And the best find sometime a light which they cannot utter and the force of a reason in their minds which is no whit ready for the tongue 6. Scripture examples in this point observed would moderate us What did the Apostles require 7. He that gives a true Yea or a Nay shews that he believes the Truth 8. He that in his life seeks heaven before earth shews that he knows it to be better than earth I speak these things but to moderate some men I add 9. It is commonly as much the Ministers fault that he hath not a satisfactory Answer as the persons I have noted it that most Ministers either speak roughly or indiscreetly discouragingly provokingly or of things not essential and that it is a matter requiring greater wisdom than most have to draw out the minds of the most ignorant sort of our people 10. And if they know not the essentials may we not help them to a tolerable knowledge of them at the present before we part with them At least we should trie 3. While men do wilfully delay upon a sufficient Call to profess their Consent to the matters in the third Article forementioned viz. to take God for their God Christ for their Saviour the Spirit for their Sanctifier the Word for their Rule we must delay our using them as Godly 4. He that professeth to esteem this world more than that to come add reverseth it not though we know not certainly whether he spoke it deliberately must be presumed ungodly till he reverse it 5. He that professeth not to leave his known sins but rather to venture on Gods displeasure though its possible he may speak it hastily in a temptation yet is to be presumed ungodly till he manifest Repentance that he is now of another mind 6. So they that profess that they will venture or lose their Interest in Heaven rather than forsake their sins till they repent manifestly of this are to be presumed to be ungodly 7. So they that live constantly in the commission of gross sins though they profess Repentance and promise Reformation yet have over and over broke their promises and still continue in the sin such mens words are not any more to be credited else all Discipline may be eluded till they actually reform And though we cannot certainly tell just how much gross sin may stand with Grace yet because we must judge by probable evidence and the Apostle telleth us that such shall not inherite the Kingdom of God and that if we live after the Flesh we shall die we must presume that men are what they appear to be Had we such a man as Solomon in his sin to deal with we ought to use him as an ungodlâ— man I think So those that have lately committed scandalous Notorious sin and will not on sufficient perswasion manifest any satisfactory repentance for it we must presume them ungodly till they will manifest repentance For we know except they repent they shall perish and an undiscovered repentance is to us as none And our Divines at Dort conclude that though a Godly man lose not his Justification by gross sinning yet he contracts such an incapacity of coming to heaven in that state that must be removed by repentance or else he could not be saved 8. Those that will not hearken to them that would admonish them but refuse to obey their counsel for the forsaking of known sin and also despise and abuse them meerly for that Though its possible this may be as Asâ— did in a temptation yet we must presume till he repenteth that he is ungodly for we know that he that being oft reproved hardeneth his neck shall be destroyed without remedy specially when it is a Minister of acknowledged sobriety and authority that doth reprove and the Reproof hath nothing in it that should seem injurious 9. Those that do deride or slander or persecute the generality of Godly men about them for their apparent Godly practices in matters of weight in Religion though its possible in a Temptation they may do it upon some mis-reports and mis-apprehensions yet till they manifest repentance we have sufficient reason to presume that they are ungodly men So for those that evidently endeavour the disgracing or extirpation of Godliness 10. Those that either profess to take a godly life as an unnecessary or that being convinced or having full evidence which might convince them do yet refuse to hear the word to pray at all to seek heaven in the
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
from any body than from no body But I must say that I despair of speaking writing or doing any thing so exactly but that ingenious malice may plausibly put it into as odious a dress as this Reverend man I hope with a better mind hath there cloathed the passages with which he refers to Pag. 7. His passion quite conquereth his ingenuity while he is not contented to ease his spleen on me alone but must fall upon the Worcestershire profession of faith and therein pick quarrels with the plainest passages contrary to the sence that I had told him in my explication we took the words in and can find that in sundry particulars therein we give too great a countenance to the Socinian abominations when we have professed that we believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and then that we consent to take this God for our God and chief Good this Christ for our only Saviour c. he can find us directly answering Mr. Biddle and distinguishing the Lord Jesus our Redeemer as our Lord from that one true God as if we did not include the three persons in the first Article of our consent and in the second respect the office of Christ rather than the pure Godhead considered in it self whiâ—h was expressed before Or as if we had not plainly prevented such exceptions As God is offered so is he to be accepted and therefore our consent must respect the benefits and offices and not only the persons in the Trinity as such And did this Reverend man forget how oft Paul hath given him the very same cause to suspect his words of countenancing Socinianism excepting the difference of the authors as we have done I mean how oft he doth as plainly distinguish as we here do But because such eyes will not look at an explication in the distant leaves we have since tryed a further remedy against such Calumniations by putting our exposition in the margent that he that will see the words themselves may see them But when all is done you see what dealing you must expect I look not to scape the fangs of such excepters if I say that I believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost for no doubt but some of them can find heresie or somewhat that countenanceth it in this But the hardest measure of all that I have from him is in his Socinian parallel in 11. Articles page 11.12 c. I never met with Reader but understood without doubt that he mentioned the words in the English Letter as mine But he was wiser than to say so much more to quote the places where they are all found Indeed part of them are the common Protestant doctrine and part of them never fell from my pen nor came into my thoughts with any approbation Yet hath he so prudently managed the business that his Readers shall generally think he chargeth them on me and who will not believe him rather then search he knows not where to disprove him and yet he may deny it when ever he is blamed for it Having thus given you an account of the quality of that Appendix I hope you see sufficient Reason why I should forbear a more particular Reply Nor will I vie with him in poetical shreds and adages though a Polyanthea or Erasmus Apopthegms would furnish me without any further travel And next as to Mr. Blake I find more cause in his last writings to deter me from all Disputations where pious men may think themselves concerned than to encourage me to proceed in the justest defence And I confess it repenteth me for his own sake that ever I defended my self against his accusations and that I did not silently suffer him to say what he would though yet I am willing that the equity of the Reasons which I gave for my Replying to him in that Apologie be censured by any impartial man even those that I have expressed in my preface to that Book But I could not then see the consequents as to himself I am heartily sorry that I have become by my defence an occasion or temptation of so much offence and of so much distemper and injustice to a man whom I so much love and honour should I speak any further for that which I am confident is the truth of God how much more might I offend and tempt him I well hoped that he that made the assault on his Brother would have patiently heard an answer and have been glad of such a collation of our several thoughts as might tend in any measure to beat out the truth As he thought it was for God that he assaulted me so I as verily think it was for God and his certain truth that I wrote my defence And if I be mistaken why should he be so angry at it when I know he takes not himself to be infallible When I wrote 〈◊〉 the Index the contents of one section thus whether it be virtually written in Scripture that Mr. Blake is justified and whether it is de fide he saith pag. 336. that he did not without trembling of spirit read nor without tears think upon this thus put to the question And what 's the reason why saith he Who would not believe that I had directly asserted it or made some unsavooy vaunts about it Truly no man would believe it from these words that knows what an Index is but would understand that it tels him the matter that is contained in the page that it referreth him to and not the matter directly asserted by another And must we not dispute against that also which is indirectly asserted I profess it never came into my thoughts that the most render passionate man that was not melancholy could have so much matter of offence in those words as to tremble or weep at them It is a case wherein I must speak of some individual or I could not speake to the purpose For it s granted that it is not every mans justification that is de fide nor every justified mans and yet some mens was Had I instanced in Peter or Paul it had been nothing to out business For I confess that Scripture declareth them to be justified Titius and Sompronius I knew not and therefore could not instance in them Should I have instanced in my self he might have taken it for sophistical For the disproof of my own certainty of justification is no disproof of another mans whom then could I more reasonably and fitly instance in than the Opponent himself especially being a man of whose sincerity I am so confident It never entered into my apprehension that this was any more wrong to him than it would have been to have put this question Whether Mr. Blake's Soul be in loco if I had been disputing with him whether anima humana sit in loco I profess if it were to do again I know not how more fitly to express it But if I have not skill enough to draw the index of a Section
the Lord whom we most offend in the abundance of his Grace doth forgive us both I must confess that when I think I have a call to dispute I do withall think that I am called to lay open the nakedness of the cause which I oppose to the utmost and being perswaded that I speak against that which is against God me thinks if I do not effectually manifest its falshood I do nothing whereupon I finde that what is spoken against the cause is taken as a dishonour to the person and he takes himself to be wounded or wronged by it when I never touch the person at all so that if I do but once name the Imposture of a common distinction Mr. Blake comes on as if I had called all those learned men cheators or impostors that use that distinction between fides qua quâ yea even those that condescended privately to write to me and so parrallels me with Mr. Craudon herein Mr. Craudon spoke of persons and I speak of distinctions and reasons Is not this a meer violence as if it were to raise an odium and set men together by the ears When I mention the weakness of his own arguing he tells me I must not answer a fool according to his folly and marvails I will set my wit against such a ones Is not such dealing a sufficient prohibition to dispute If I shew not the weakness of an Argument I do nothing If I do I make the Author a fool If I shew that an Argument is unsound or a conclusion false I make him false If I shew that some common distinction hath unobservedly deceived many I make all the Learned that use it impostors even my friends that privately vouchsafe me their writings Well I am satisfied and take the prohibition This book of Mr. Blakes I proclaim unanswerable These are too hard and unjust terms for me to dispute upon Especially when the main issue of a large volume must be but to reckon up a Dear and Reverend Brothers mistakes Yet I must confess that the controversies about the object of Justifying Faith whether Christ as Lord and the object of Baptism do seem to me of so great weight and use to the Church to be well discust that I will not peremptorily resolve against medling so far with his book if any more judicious do convince me it is my duty But I have run much beyond my first intention I thought but to give you some reasons why I should not write any Rejoynder to these learned Reverend men Dr. Owen Mr. Robertson or Mr. Blake and giving you my Reasons I find I have done some of that which those Reasons were brought against and from which I intended to excuse myself But having run so far with the other I shall say the less of Mr. Robertson his dealing with me is like others that have gone before him and do accompany him and I am now so used to it that I the less marvail at it Of this zealous Brutus I must needs say Nescio quid juvenis iste vult sed quicquid vult vehementer vult It s enough to make us admire Gods patience and mercy that will forbear and pardon such things to the Sons of men and it s a sad discovery of the lamentable case of the Church on earth that Grace should have so much corruption with it and that the Church must make use of such sinful guides as we are in the way to glory For though the Scripture saith that a false witness shall not be unpunished and he that telleth Lyes shall not escape and that Railors shall not enter into the kingdom of God yet I hope they may have Grace that do it in a mistaken zeal for God though Self may have too much hand in it But we may see in our miscarriages that it is not for nothing that God hath let loose such Judgements upon Professors and such floods of reproach upon us our selves that serve at his Altar as lately he hath done I dare say that many a Heathen would have scorned to have given out against his greatest Enemy such volumes of notorious impudent falshoods and imprudent railings as Mr. Robertson and other of his spirit have lately done against one that was none of their enemy Might I but have truth from them I care not for my own part for the worst of their words But who knows how to confute such volumes whose very substance is compounded of gross falshoods and calumnies Either the Reader of Mr. Robertsons Book and his associates will also read mine or they will not If they will not let them take their course and believe what they list and not what is true for how can I help it if I write again what likelyhood that they will read it that will not read that which is written already If they lose by it no more then I what cause have I to care But if they will but read the book which Mr. Robertson opens his mouth against I desire no more if that will not satisfie them and make them lament over the spirit of this man I have no more to say to them they are none of the men for whom I write But Mr. Robertson hath little cause to say that I am for Justification by Works when I hope that such men as he are justified whose works are such as I once hoped no man had been so guilty of that had the least fear of God before his eyes I profess I marvail what 's the matter that the wasps of the Nation are gathered about my ears I cannot but hope yet that there are few more such in England as those that I have had to deal with His first assault of me is about the Inception of Gods immanent acts But never had I such a confuter before no not Mr. Craudon himself He bestows a whole Epistle on part of his book to tell the Reader how he detests my Blasphemy and that 's my confutation Not a line of my Book doth he cite and confute But in general tells me that I affirm new Immanent acts in God and then cryes out upon the blasphemy Must we write confutations of such men as these No they that will believe them let them take that they get by it it s nothing to me that cannot remedy it What if twenty men will swear that I have written there is no God must I write against them all I laid down my mind in the case that I am thus dealt with about in several propositions as plain as I could speak the sum of the chief part of them was this that the substance of the Act as commonly called that is the Essence of God is neither multiplyed nor beginneth nor endeth but the Relations and extrinsick denominations are many and may begin and end Yet would I not presume to determine with Pet. Hertado de Mendoza and others that the Relations are ex parte Dei but only took what the Thomists grant that