neer Learned Friends have done for more than I will speak of It s like he will hardly exact a Profession of saving Repentance from the lapsed for their Restoration to the communion of the Church if he will not do it of the Church themselves in their Sacramental communion Argum. 4. Furthermore they that will not profess true Love to Christ as a Redeemer are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper But no man can Profess true Love that will not Profess true faith Ergo c. The Major is proved in that it is a Sacrament of communion in Love We receive the highest expressions of Christs love and are to receive them with gratitude which hath alwaies love in it Argum. 5. They that profess not true Pope of Christs coming in Glory are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper But none can do that but the Professors of a saving faith Therefore the Major is proved because it is the very end and use of the Sacrament to exercise Hope of Christs coming Do this in remembrance of me till I come which Implyeth Expectation or Hope Argum. 6. No man is to be admitted to the Lords Supper that Professeth not a sincere love to the Saints as Saints But so can none do that Profess not a saving faith without contradicting himself Ergo. The Major is proved in that the very business of that Church there next their communion with Christ is to have communion with the Saints in Love and if they be at variance but with one they must leave their gift at the Altar and go first and be reconciled to their Brother and then come and offer their gift But Mr. Blake is so far from excluding the ungodly that he would not have us so much as disswade them from coming Pag. 196. he saith to that 1. It is as I suppose without all Scripture Precedent to warn men upon account of want of a new life by the Spirit wholly to keep off from this or any other Ordinances of Christ that we should warn men upon this account upon this very ground to hold off from all address to Ordinances I have not learnt Answ. That we should disswade them to come till they have that Faith and Repentance and Love to the Brethren which is the fruit of a new life I have proved and more have done it than you will ever well answer And it will not follow as you pretend that then none must come that have not the certainty of their sincerity in the Faith as I shall further shew when I come purposely to your Objections And where you talk of unregenerate mens being incapable of examining themselves it s a great mistake else no wicked man could despair if he be not able to find himself to be wicked And then it would be a sufficient Evidence of Grace for a man to find himself graceless which is a contradiction And it s an unhappy confusion that Mr. Blake is guilty of almost all along while he pleadeth against the Interest of the Regenerate only in the Sacraments that he confoundeth most commonly the Professors of Justifying Faith and holiness with his Professors of a faith short of Justifying and thus in his arguing against Mr. Hooker and Galaspie and others carrieth on the matter in the dark as if these were all one or the arguments will serve for the one that will serve for the other which is meerly to lose his own and his Readers labour or leave him deceived which is worse How many leaves of that volumn and his former of the covenants are guilty of this dark misleading work I could willingly here answer his Arguments for unregenerate mens right to this Sacrament but 1. I shall meet with much more about their pretended right to baptism anon and the answer of those will serve for both 2. And he hath so mixt the two Cases of Professors of saving faith and of not saving together that if I deal with him on the later he may say he speaks of the former The first Argument of Galaspies 201 which he answereth is from the Nature of Sacraments which are to signifie that we have already Faith in Christ Remission of sin by him and Union with him The sense of the Argument is That seeing Sacraments according to Christs institution are confirming signs presupposing the thing signified both on our part and on Gods therefore none should use them that have not first the thing signified by them at least those at age To this Master Blake answereth This to me is as strange as new that Sacramental signs declare shew that we have Faith remission of sins The Sacrament now in question is a sign of the body blood of Christ in whom by faith remission of sins may be obtained I know but that it is a sign either that we do believe or that we have remission of sin otherwise than upon believing to which this engages but not presupposes I know not Repl. Though I undertake not to defend all the Arguments that other men use in this Case yet this doth so much concern the cause of baptism which I am now debating that I shall give you this reply to it 1. The sacramental Actions are signs as well as the substance of bread and wine The Offer with Take eat signifieth the offer of Christ to us to be received and applyed the Taking and Eating and Drinking signifieth our Acceptance Application of him With himself is offered the pardon of sin and given to all that Accept him which by Taking Eating and Drinking we profess to do It is my duty to tell you that it is sad that a Treatise of Sacraments should profess not to know that our believing and Remission is here signified It s pity but this had been known before you had written of them at least Controversally What Divines are there that deny the Sacraments to be mutual signs and seals signifying and sealing our part as well as Gods and how ill do you to wrong the Church of God by seeking to make men believe that these things are new and strange If it be so to you its pity that it is so But sure you have seen Mr. Gatakers Books against Doct. Word and Davenant wherein you have multitudes of sentences recited of our Protestant Divines that affirm this which you call new It is indeed their most common doctrine that the Sacrament doth pre-suppose Remission of sin and our faith and that they are instituted to signifie these as in being though through infancy or error some may not have some benefits of them till after it is the common Protestant Doctrine that Sacraments do solemnize and publikely own and confirm the mutual Covenant already entered in heart as a King is crowned a Souldier listed a Man and Woman married after professed consent so that the sign is Causal as to the Consummation and Delivery as a Key a Twig and Turff in giving possession but consequential to the Contract
profess to assent to the truth of that Doctrine and no moâ—e unless as that Assent may imply the Consent of the Will are not Saints But let us peruse some other Texts besides these that Mr. Blake citeth The Congregations of the Saints are mentioned in the Old Testament as Psal. 89 5 7. and 149 1. But what Saints these were may appear by the Promises made to them Ps. 149.5 9 4 16.3 37.28 97.10 132.9 16. 145 10. The Children of Israel a people neer unto him are called Saints Psal. 148.14 but it is because they are a part of them his people in heart and the rest profess themselves to be his People in a saving sense And if there were any that did not so he was not an Israelite by Religion nor to be of that Common-wealth but to be cut off from his People Acts 9.13 The Saints at Jerusalem that Paul persecuted were such as not only professed saving Faith but also had the witness of Martyrdom and Persecutions to testifie their Sincerity They that continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking bread and prayers having all things common selling their possessions and goods and parting them to all men as every man had need praising God c. did profess more then a Faith and Repentance short of that by which we are saved But so did the Church at Jerusalem Act. 2.41 42. to the end yea the multitude of them that Believed were of one heart one soul and great grace was upon them all c. Acts 4.32 to 36. so that we may see what Saints the Church at Jerusalem were And if all were not such we see evidently that the whole was denominated from such The Church of Rome were all called Saints Rom. 1.7 True But what was meant by that word and what Saints did they appear to Paul by their Profession to be Even such as were beloved of God whose Faith was spoken of throughout the world that were dead to sin but alive to God that had obeyed from the heart that form of Doctrine delivered to them and being made free from sin became the servants of Righteousness and of God having their fruit to holiness and the end everlasting life Rom. 1.7 8. and 6 11 14 17 18 21. whose obedience was come abroad to all men Rom. 16.19 Here is more then the Profession of a common Faith The Corinthians are called Saints True But what is meant by Saints such as called on the name of the Lord Iesus Christ having much of his grace enriched by him in all things coming behind in no Gift waiting for the coming â—f our Lord Iesus Christ who shall confirm them to the end that they may be blameless at his coming 1 Cor. 1.2 to ver 10. all was theirs 1. Cor. 3.22 23. They were such Saints as were washed and sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Iesus and by the Spirit of God and such as were to â—udge the World and the Angels Chap. 6.3 11. delivered from that unrighteousness that would have kept from Heaven ver 9.10 11. such as had no temptation but what was common to man whom the faithful God would not suffer to be tempted above their strength c. Chap. 10.13 such as were not so much as to eat with the notoriously wicked Chap. 5 11. and therefore doubtless Professed Godliness themselves in whom godly sorrow had wrought carefulness clearing of themselves zeal c. 2 Cor. 7.11 in whom the Apostle had confidence in all things ver 16. Object But Paul saith they were carnal and taxeth them with some gross Errors and Sins Answ. 1. So are all the Regenerate carnal in part and guilty of too many sins And it is not Impenitency after admonition that he chargeth them with Their sin was no worse to our eye than David's or Solomon's 2. If any were so bad as to be notoriously ungodly those are not of that number whom he calleth Saints as they are not of them that have the following Descriptions of Saints which I have cited but only were among them but not of them The Galathians I find not called Saints but to call them a Church of Christ or Believers is Equipollent And what Saints were they Why they were all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus having been baptized into Christ and put him on and were all one in him and were Abraham's seed and heirs according to the Promise Gal. 3.26 27 29. And because they were sons God sent the Spirit of his Son into their hearts by which they cryed Abba Father and therefore were no more servants but sons and if sons then heirs of God through Christ. Object But Paul was afraid of them lest he bestowed upon them labour in vain Answ. 1. It appeareth by what is said that it was not such a fear as made him take them for ungodly 2. This confirmeth what I maintain that the Apostles judgement of them proceeded according to the Evidences of probability He took himself bound to believe their Profession so far as they contradicted it not and according to the prevalency of their Errors which were against it he was jealous of their condition and if they had proceeded so far as to have declared themselves certainly ungodly Paul would have denominated them a Church no more The Church of Ephesus are called Saints Eph. 1.1 But what Saints such as were blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ chosen before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before him in love pâ—edestinated to the adoption of Children by Jesus Christ according to the good pleasure of his will to the praise of the glory of his Grace wherein he made them accepted in the beloved in whom they had redemption through his blood the remission of sins and have obtained an Inheritance being predestinated c. Who trusted in Christ and were sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise which is the earnest of their Inheritance they were such as believed in the Lord Jesus and loved all the saints and were quickened who had been dead in trespasses and sins were raised up together and made to sit in heavenly places If Mr. Blake while he abhorreth the name of a Saint or Church equivocally so called would not make all words equivocal that in Scripture are used to denominate or describe a Church or Saint we might easily be resolved by such passages as these what Paul meaneth by a Church or Saint See further Eph. 3.18 All Saints comprehend what is the breadth and length depth height and Christ dwelleth in their hearts by faith and they rooted and grounded in love Eph. 3.17 18. But Mr. Blakes Saints do none of this therefore they are no Saints in Scripture sense With this text compare Eph. 2.19 and see what a Church is and what it is to be fellow-Citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God and
as privately made and the Right given thereby So that the soul is supposed to consent to have Christ as offered first which is saving faith and then by receiving him Sacramentally delivered to make publike profession of that consent and publikely to receive his sealed Remission Mr. Corbet cited by you might well say that primarily the Sacrament is Gods Seal but did he say that it is only his and not secondarily ours And in the next words you do in effect own part of the doctrine your self which you have thus wondered at as new and strange saying I confess it is a symbole of our Profession of Faith but this is not the Faith spoken to neither is Remission of sins annext unto it Answ. If you put Profession for the thing professed you speak obscurely when you might have spoken plainly But if you mean as you speak taking Profession properly then 1. You yield that the Sacarment is our symbole and so declareth or signifieth our Action as well as Gods 2. And it is not only a sign of our Profession but a Professing sign and therefore a sign of the thing professed For the external sign is to declare the Internal acts of the mind which without signs others cannot know And therefore the Actions of Taking Eating Drinking do signifie the same Internal Acts which a verbal Profession doth signifie As therefore the Words and outward Actions are two distinct signs of the same Internal Acts so are they two wayes of Profession My signal Actions do not signifie my words which are plainer signs themselves and therefore need not darker to express them but they both express my mind so that they are not only Symbols of our Profession as you speak but Professing Symbols 3. And if so then they must be signs and Professions of those Internal Acts which correspond with them which is the Inward Taking Christ and Eating his Flesh and Drinking his Blood by Faith which no doubt are the proper acts of saving faith 4. And therfore this is the faith spoken of and Remission of sins is annext unto it which you deny though it seems you will speak of the Profession of a common faith to which Remission is not annext The second Argument was from some Scriptures proving that the Sacrament necessarily supposeth Conversion and saith and therefore is not to work it To this Mr. Blake Answers 1. By referring to what he hath said in another book about some of these Texts and thither I shall follow him 1. About Mark 16.16 he speaks Treat of Cov. pag. 243. Because he confesseth that these Texts are spoken of Baptism and so are more to my principal end and will hold as to the Lords Supper only I shall here peruse his Answers having used the same Texts my self before But now I peruse the place I find that his words of Mark 16.16 are those that I have already answered in my former Reply to him and you may peruse his Rejoinder if worth the labor The same I say of his words on Act. 8.36 37. on Act. 2. â—8 in pag. 392. I find nothing to our purpose worth a Reply but his Contest with Mr. Tombes let Mr. I regard To Act. 2 41. he now answers It speaks no more than ready Acceptation of the tender of the Gospel and whether this necessarily imply saving faith let Ezek. 33.31 Mat 13.20 21. Gal. 4.15 be consulted To which I reply 1. If by the tender of the Gospel you mean the Gospel tendred then either it is the Gospel as the Gospel declaring the work of Redemption and offering us a Saviour to deliver us from sin and wrath and this no unregenerate man did ever gladly or heartily â—ccept Or else it is the Gospel as a Novel doctrine or only â—hat part of it which offereth them pardon without the other part which offereth salvation from sin it self And this is mentioned in the Texts or some of them that you refer us to But that this is not meant in the Text Act. 2.41 is plain because it was the doctrine of Redemption Faith and Repentance which they gladly received and in prosecution of it sold all and lived in the Communion of Saints in the Praises of God 2. Or else by the tender of the Gospel you mean that which the Gospel tendereth And that is Christ as Christ with his full salvation which no unregenerate man doth heartily Accept though pardon alone they would willingly have but that 's not the tender of the Gospel If the glad Acceptation of the tender of the Gospel that is of Christ as Christ and his full salvation be not justifying or saving Faith I despair of ever knowing what it is and if this Acceptation or Faith be common all 's common I still believe that Justifying faith is the Assent to the Truth of the Gospel and hearty Acceptance of Christ as he is there offered or of Christ as Christ And having distinguished of the Object so must we of the Act. It s one thing to accept indeed by hearty Consent and another thing to accept ore tenus or to say I accept it The former only the Godly have as to Christ as Christ the Unregenerate may ore tenus verbally Accept Christ as Christ and heartily be willing to have pardon by him and submit to some common Reformation least they should miss of that pardon but Christ as Christ they will not accept Now to the Texts And its hard that you should alledge Ezek. 33.31 for ready Accepting the tender of the Gospel when the Text saith plainly that their hearts went after their coveteousness and they hear the word and would not do it though they took pleasure to hear the Prophet as a minstrel to tickle their ears and not as a Minister to save them from sin when as these in Acts 2. sold all and lived in Community with the Saints Those Mat. 13.20 21. received the external Message and Christ himself ore tenus by verbal Acceptance and Internally they would have had Christ ad hoc for their own ends as a subject or servant to their worldly Interests but they never received Christ as Christ to save them from the world and self and sin for these were still preferred before him nor did they ever accept of God as their God that is their chief good and chief Lord. I am bold therefore by your Patience to say that as to the Acceptance of Christ as Christ or God as their God or the Holy Ghost as their Sanctifier they cannot be said to have done it but equivocally and no otherwise did they receive the tender of the Gospel As for the Galathians chap. 4.15 1. All were not in Love with Paul on the same account and all love to the Preacher signifieth not an Acceptance of the tender of the Gospel 2. And you cannot prove but that these Galathians did it sincerely and were sincere when this was spoken for all their yielding so far to the temptation of false Teachers
respect of the Parents Faith which is his condition of Title I should think I made a new covenant and a new Baptism I mean If I Baptized any without the present profession of justifying faith and Repentance upon a promise that they will begin to Repent and Believe savingly for the time to come Indeed the first faith and Repentance unto life are so much above corrupted nature and so much the special gifts of God which he hath given no man assurance of in particular that hath them not already that we must stay till men have them before they are meet to be admitted upon promise that they will perform them It hath pleased some of the great Calumniators agents to censure me as an Arminian or half one because I run not so far on the other hand as they But it s a hard case that I am in who must needs be an Arminian and yet must be forced to dissent from so dear a friend as Mr. Blake for fear of becoming one I am confident that Mr. Blake in those points is Orthodox but so could not I be if I should entertain his opinion For if I did believe that upon the acts of common Grace men have covenant or promise-right given them by God to be Baptized I must needs believe that they had Right to Remission of sin in Christs blood seeing God appointed no Baptism but what is for the Remission of sin upon which account I have mightily displeased some Reverend friends that before over-valued me who are favourers of the Arminian way meerly because I oppose Mr. Blake in this point For my part I still take faith to be the very internal covenanting with God in Christ and not a condition of our own covenant though it be the condition of Gods covenant or promise and so that condition of Gods covenant and our own actual covenanting are one and the same thing our very first covenanting with him or consent to his terms is that faith on which he promiseth us Justification though there be a further performance required to our Salvation It is all one in my account to believe in Christ and to become a Christian and Baptism commonly called our Christening is not to engage us to begin to be Christians hereafter but it is the solemnization of the Christian contract or marriage between Christ and the Soul which is supposed to be made in heart before so that they are then actually Christians inaugurated or publickly manifested And for all that Mr. Blake hath said to the contrary he that professeth any faith only that is short of justifying faith is not a Christian in the covenant-sence but is only Equivocally or Analogically so called And whereas Mr. Blake makes it more tolerable if I had used the word Analogically then to use the word Equivocally if he had pleased to observe it I frequently put them together as here Equivocally or Analogically so that if that will satisfie him he might have been satisfied sooner Yet I take the Scotists controversie to be yet undecided whether some terms be not both Analogical and Univocal and some both Analogical and Equivocal which they handle on the Question Vtrum Ens dicatur Vnivocè de Deo Creaturâ or rather that the later clause is past doubt and therefore in our ease it is both Nor am I yet perswaded that his old Testament covenanters which are the great moving instance did profess only such a faith as was short of Justifying and they that lived in such scandal as was inconsistent Notoriously with their profession were by the law to be put to death and then they were past begetting Children to plead a right in Circumcision And whereas he is so confident that according to my opinion the Baptism of the unjustifyed is a Nullity and that they must be Baptized again and saith that its much to be feared if not certainly to be concluded that the Major part by far of the Worcestershire combination consists of unbaptized persons c. pag. 142 143. I answer 1. it is a meer naked unproved assertion that any such consequent doth follow on these grounds Nor can he ever prove it If the outward ordinance were rightly administred and the inward covenanting of the heart were not performed it is not that which was well done that must be done again but that must be done which was at first omitted even sincere internal covenanting or believing 2. But it is much more disputable according to his principles whether all that he should so Baptize must not be rebaptized For as the ancient Councils which were against Cyprians and the rest of the Carthaginians Rebaptizing did yet decree that all should be rebaptized that were Baptized by the Paulionists not that they allowed really of twice Baptizing but that the first was but Baptism Equivocally so called because they Baptized not into the Name of the Trinity so if we should upon the new Doctrine take up a new Baptism upon a meer Dogmatical faith which is not a believing in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost but only a Believing that there is a Father Son and Holy Ghost and add if you will a Promise to believe in them hereafter I should be hardly put to it to prove these persons truly Baptized and that it being a Nullity all were not to be done again and yet some Brethren of Mr. Blakes minde think that my Judgement opens the way to Rebaptizing when I doubt it will be hard to avoid it as to every person in the way that he disputeth for Not that I think that any one should be rebaptized that is Baptized by Mr. Blake or any of them For I am confident that neither he nor they did ever practice their own doctrine nor ever Baptized one person but upon the profession of justifying faith it self 3. But why do they not see that on their own grounds many of their own Baptizings would be Nullities and the persons be Rebaptized If a Dogmatical faith it self be of necessity to the Being of Baptism then what shall be done with those many hundred Children among us whose Parents discover to us that they have not that Dogmatical faith How many have we oft occasion to speak with that marvail when we tell them what Christ is and hath done and suffered for us as if they had never hard it before when yet they sit under our teaching day by day like Dr. John White 's Catechumene that being asked what Jesus Christ was answered that she did not know she was never taught so far but sure enough it is some good thing or it should never have been put into the Creed Would Mr. Blake have the Children of all these rebaptized or not If yea then he is more than I for rebaptizing if not then how will it follow any more from my judgement that the Children of the unjustifyed must be Rebaptized I cannot conceive what he can say without going to the right of remote ancestors or the
man which is corrupt accordâ—ng to the deceitful lusts of the flesh He that signally professeth his present Consent to be washed by the blood of Christ from his former filthiness and guilt and to lay by the filthiness of Flesh and Spirit doth eo nomine profess saving faith and Repentance But all that are baptized with the baptism of Christs Institution do by the very voluntary Reception of Baptism so profess therefore they do thereby profess saving Faith and Repentance 3. Quo ad modum It s commonly confessed by us to the Anabaptists as our Commentators declare that in the Apostles times the Baptized were dipped over head in the water and that this signified their Profession both of believing the Burial and Resurrection of Christ and of their own present renouncing the World and Flesh or dying to sin and living to Christ or rising again to newness of Life or being buried and risen again with Christ as the Apostle expoundeth in the fore-cited Texts of Col. 3. Rom. 6. And though as is before said we have thought it lawful to disuse the manner of Dipping and to use less water yet we presume not to change the use and signification of it so then He that signally professeth to dye and rise again in baptism with Christ doth signally profess Saving Faith and Repentance But this do all that are baptized according to the Apostolical practice therefore c. Object about Nullity But it will be objected that this Argument goeth so high that it will prove that all mens baptism is a Nullity who do not profess Saving Faith and Repentance and so that they must be baptized again Answ. 1. This concerneth the Opponents to answer more than me 2. There are no such persons that I know of and therefore they are not to be re-baptized We distinguish between the secret Intention of Professing and the signal Interpretative Professing which the Church is bound to take as really intended And so I say that when Christ hath Instituted baptism for such a signification if any man seek and receive that baptism he doth thereby Interpretatively profess to seek and receive it as such to the use and Ends to which it was Instituted seeing then all the baptized do apparently as far as the Church can judge profess Saving Faith and Repentance even by receiving baptism there is no room for the conclusion of this Objection When they bring us forth one baptized Person who did not make such a signal Profession then we shall give them a further answer 3. If they did by word of mouth say that they believe with a saving Faith these words are but signs of their minds and whether counterfeit or not the Church cannot tell And the same may be said of the Baptismal Action and Reception 4. Therefore the Church must not take the external Sacrament for a Nullity every time a mans secret Intentions agree not with his signal Profession for then we should not know whether ever we baptize any one But when it is discovered after that he had other Intentions that which was wanting must be yet done viz. his sincere Intentions or saving faith and not that which was not wanting be done again viz. The external Administration and Reception of Baptism 5. It is confessed to be essential to the Sacrament that the Receiving of the washing by Water doth signifie the receiving of the souls washing by the Blood of Christ. Now suppose I can prove it of abundance of Parents that when they presented their Children to Baptism they did not understand that the water signified the blood of Christ or the washing our cleansing by it from sin and therefore had no such Intention in Baptism would the Opponents baptize all these again Let them answer this for themselves and they shall answer for us Or if the Case of Infant-baptism be quarrelled at let them suppose that it were the Person himself that had been so baptized though I am satisfied that its all one Argum. 4. If we must baptize none that profess not their Consent to enter themselves presently into the Covenant of Grace with God in Christ then we must baptize none that profess not saving faith But the former is true therefore c. Also if the very Reception of Baptism be a Profession of present entering into the Gospel-covenant with Christ then is it a Profession of saving faith But so it is therefore c. This Argument was implyed in the former but the Medium that I now use is the Identity of this covenanting and the profession of saving Faith supposing the Identity of Heart-covenanting and saving faith it self The Antecedent I think will be granted by many of the Papists and it is the common doctrine of the Protestants and therefore as to them I need not prove it I confess some of the Anabaptists and some few others do question whether Baptism be a Seal of the covenant of Grace But the quarrel is mostly if not only about the bare word Seal for they confess that in sense which we mean by sealing and particularly they confess that we do in Baptism enter into the covenant of God and that it is a professing and engaging sign on our part as well as an exhibiting notifying confirming sign on Gods part The consequence is thus proved He that doth ore tenus or by profession enter into the covenant of God doth profess saving faith therefore if we must not baptize them without a professed entering into covenant then nether must we baptize them without a profession of saving Faith Only the Antecedent requireth proof And if I prove either the Identity of profest covenanting and profest true believing or else the inseparableness of them I prove the Antecedent But I shall prove the Identity or the inseparability yea I doubt not of the first which is the most full proof And here we must first consider what the Covenant is we are to enter 1. And it is confest it is the covenant of Grace and that there is but one covenant of Grace This Mr. Blake aknowledgeth for all the mention of an outward covenant 2. It is also a confessed thing on all hands that it is God that is the first Author and Offerer of the covenant that it is he that redeemed us who made the promise or covenant of Grace upon the ground of Redemption and that this is frequently called a covenant in Scripture as it is a divine Law or constitution without respect to mans consent as Grotius hath proved in the preface to his Annotations on the Evangelists Much more out of doubt it is that it is called a covenant before man consenteth as it is a covenant offered and not yet mutually entered In the former sense the word is taken properly but in another sense and for another thing then in the later But in the later it is taken Tropically viz. Synecdochically it being but a covenant drawn up and consented to by God conditionally and offered to us
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-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
Of which I have spoken before Of Acts 10.47 hereafter The sense of the third Argument is that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper giveth us New food viz. the Flesh and Blood of Christ. Therefore it supposeth the new Birth and Life To this Mr. Blake saith 1. Metaphors are ill Materials to make up into Syllogisms Repl. 1. They are such as Christ used John 6. and frequently in Reasoning and therefore I am resolved to believe they are good Materials 2. We must use Metaphors or no words in some of the greatest Points in Divinity about God 3. We cannot easily find fitter terms here then New Bâ—rth Life and Food And if you had rather have many words then one change Food into special means of continuing or encreasing our New Life But this is a long term for a Syllogism 2. Saith Mr. Blake A difference may be put between ordinary and quickening food Repl. You should have told us your difference how it concerneth our case if you would have had us taken notice of it 3. He saith The word gives new Food and yet supposeth not new life 1 Pet. 1. â— Rep. The clean contrary is the scope of the Text you cite As new born babes desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby The Word therefore as Food doth suppose new Birth and Life Christ as our first life is given in the Word to those that had not life before but Christ as our Food is given after both in the Word and Sacrament But you say There is a Sacramental work preceding our eating and there Christ is set forth to the aggravation of sin to carry on the work of Contrition and Compunction Rep. It s a sorry arguing that because there is that in the Sacrament which may benefit an ungodly man to see that therefore he hath right to receive it yea or is like to have benefit by it He that will not consent that Christ shall be his full Saviour may be moved to consent by seeing a Sacrament True though it is not appointed to such ends yet its possible But how should he be moved to consent by receiving it and so signaâ—ly Professing to consent when he doth not that is by lying The fourth Argument is from Rom 4.11 Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith therefore so is Baptism therefore so is the Lords Supper therefore it belongeth only to justified Believers To this Mr. Blake answereth 1. Then Ismael and each male were justified Rep. 1. He whom you answer spoke only of the Adult and then you should have said only then Ismael and all the males that had true right to Circumcision were either justified believers or the children of such or as to Church right of those that Professed themselves such And that is true 2 And it is lis sub judice yet whether the Synod of Dort Davenant c. or Mr. Gataker were in the right and so whether all the seed of justified persons have an Infant justification with them or not You add that Abrahams Circumcision there is not made a proof of hâ—s justification Repl. He that maketh it the Instituted Nature or use of Circumcision to be a Seal of a Righteousness of Faith which the person had before doth make his Circumcision a proof of his foregoing Righteousness of faith But so did Paul concerning Abraham therefore c. 2. Paul may give us a full proof of it though he spake those words to another intent The fifâ—h Argument is to the same purpose with the former as Mr. Blake reciteth it and therefore I shall say no more to it his answer requiring no more The sixth Argument he passeth by himself The 7. Argument is from the Necessity of a wedding garment I confess I do not think that it is the Sacrament only that is meant by thaâ— feast but it is Christ as offered in the Gospel with his benefits which in the Sacrament is specâ—ally represented and coming in is their coming into the visible Church by Profession and the scope of the Parable is to shew these two things 1. That he thaâ— invited them to come in did intend that they must come in that case and with that preparation as is answerable to the nature of the feast and is for the Honor of the Bridgegroom or Master of the Feast and therefore they should so have come 2. That because they so came not they shall only suffer as those that came not but also be cast out into a greater degree of misery that is because they come not with an upright penitent true believing heart disposed to Obedience Now the thing that Mr Blake should answer is whether it be not hence proved that men should have the Wedding garment of sincere faith before they come into the visible Church they or their Parents and much more before the Lords Supper God saith Friend how camest thou in hither not having on a Wedding garment But of this more anon Where Mr. Blake saiâ—h The world may lay as fair a claim to this wedding Feâ—st as the Supper I reply Neither one nor the other is it simply considered in it self but as a Church priviledge or a sign of our Church-membership And so the word of promise claimed or other parts and uses of it proper to Church-members are included with the Sacraments but not the word as preparing and common to those without The Lord of that Feast saith not Friend why wast thou invited hâ—ther for it was done by his own appointment but Friend how camest thou in hither that is I Invited thee not to come without the wedding garment to disgrace my house but to bring it with thee This therefore of Mr. Blakes is no answer The 8â—h Argument is That ordinance which is not appointed to work Faith is no coverting ordinance but c. Faith comes by hearing c. To which Mr. Blake answers that reading and seeing Miracles may also convert and so may Sacraments as not being opposite but subordinate I reply Hearing as the chiefest way of Reception is put for all the rest It is the word heard or read or some way received that is the appointed means of Conversion It s possible the Sacrament may be a means too but give us as good proof that it was appointed to that use or may be used to that end purposely by the unconverted as we shall prove the same of the Word and you shall carry the Cause The ninth Argument is That Ordinance which hath neither the promise of the grace of Conversion annexed to it or any example in the Word of God of any converted by it is no converting Ordinance But c. Ergo. To this 1. Mr. Blake answers ad homineÌ„ which is not worth repeating that examples will not satisfie his Adversary 2. That we have as many examples of mens conversion by the sacrament at we have of their receiving strength and nourishment Repl. A
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
we have no natural capacity of judging but according to evidence and we have no evidence for a certain judgement concerning the estate of another mans heart 2. I have elsewhere made it appear and more abundantly might easily do that when God mentioneth any person qualified with such a Qualification which to us is uncertain to be the object of our Act his meaning is that we should rationally and charitably judge of men according to evidence whether they are such or no and so take them and use them accordingly the Apparere being here as the Esse to us So when he bids us if a Brother wrong us oft and oft say It repenteth me forgive him it is all one with that other If he repent forgive him We know not certainly whether he repent or not but we must take him probably to repent that giveth us the evidence of a probable profession So if we are to baptize those that repent and believe or their children how can we judge of them but by a probable profession 4. It is therefore granted that though such a degree of Ungodliness as is consistent with sincere Godliness be Notorious yet that 's not the subject of our Question for that doth not denominate a man ungodly seeing it is from the predominant part that he must be denominated The Doubt remaineth therefoâ—e abouâ— Ungodliness in the proper sense Notorious as is before explained And I shall now defend the Negative as followâ—th Arg. 1. We have no word of God commanding or Authorizing us to baptize the children of the notoriously ungodly as theirs Therfore is it not our duty or lawfull What command or warrant is pretended from Scripture we shall examine anon Arg. 2. We may not baptâ—ze them who are Notoriously without true Covenant Right to Baptism But such are the children of notorious ungodly Parents Ergo. The Minor is proved before the Major needs no proof I think We should give each his Right Arg. 3. If it be the very reason why we must Baptize the Ungodly and theâ—r Seed who profess Godliness because that by professing it they seem probably to be godly then must we not baptize them who do not seem probably to be godly or if you had rather to be true Believers But the Antecedent is true Therefore so is the Consequent For the Antecedent I have said enough for it to Mr. Blake If it were not propter fidem significandam that profession were required but propter se as the condition of the Covenant then 1. God would not have said He that believeth and is baptized c. And if thou believe with all thy heart thou mayst be baptized and Repent and be baptized c. but rather if thou wilt but say thou believest thou mayst be baptized c. 2. And then all that profess should be justified For all that be in the Mutual Covenant with God actually are justified 3. And then such profession would be of flat necessity to Salvation as well as faith which it is not but on supposition of Opportunity a Call c. I think I may take it for granted that Profession is required sub ratione signi as a sign of the thing professed nor can any man I think give a better reason of its necessity though another after this may be because God will have the outward man to serve him by thus signifying by its operations what are the Elicite Acts and dispositions of the Will The Consequence of the foresaid Major proposition is past doubt I suppose If any think otherwise the next Argument may rectifie them Argu. 4. He that is not to be judged a credible professed Christian or the child of such is not the just object of our act of baptizing Or We ought to baptize none but those whom we should judge true professed Christians and their children But the notoriously Ungodly are not to be judged true professed Christians nor their Children the Children of such therefore not to be baptized As the word Profession signifieth a pretended discovering of the mind with an intention to deceive so I confess it may be called a profession Physically or Metaphysically true But it is not this natural Truth that we here mean nor yet do I stretch the word so high as to comprehend the full gradual correspondency of the Act to the Object but I plainly mean a Moral Truth opposed to a Lye or Falshood And being speaking about moral-Legal things the terms must be necessarily understood according to the Subject So that it were proper in this Case If I simply maintained that such are Not Professors of Christianity at all because in a moral Law-sense they are not such For no man is to give credit to a notorious lye so to speak is equal to silence as to any obligation that it can lay upon another either to believe him or to use him as one that is believed My meaning therefore is that we are not to baptize that man or his child upon a profession which is notoriously false so that our selves and the Congregation do certainly know or have sufficient Reasons to be confident that the man doth lye For the proof of the Minor which I know will be denied thus I prove it If either the Profession be evidently but Equivocally called a true Profession or the Christianity professed be but equivocally called Christianâ—ty then the notoriously ungodly are not to be judged true professed Christans But the one of these is so with all notoriously ungodly persons Ergo. The Major is past doubt seing there must be the true profession of true Christianity that must justly denominate a man at age a true Professor of Christianity If he notoriously want the first he is morally no Professor If he want the later he professeth not â—hristianity To prove the Minor we will begin with the later We speak not now of any Accidentals that pertain not to the Being but tend only to the well-Being of a Christian. Now I hope it is past controversie among us all that it is essential to our Christianity that it be in the Intellect and Will whatever we say of the outward Man and for the Intellect that we believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost And it is essential to our believing in God that we believe him to be our Creator Chief Ruler and chief End and Happiness And to believe in the Son Essentially containeth a believing that he is Jesus Christ our Lord that is that he is the Redeemer of the world who shed his blood to save his people from their sins by pardon and sanctification and who will raise them from the dead and judge them to everlasting Blessedness and who is their Lord and Ruler on this ground and to this end to believe in the Holy Ghost essentially containeth a believing that his Testimony of Christ was true and that he is the Sanctifier of those that shall be saved It is as much essential to Christianity to consent that