to Execute without Judgement and yet this is no denial of the Authority of a Judge So much to the matter of this Argument And now in Sum to the Argument as in Form 1. I deny the first Consequence if it speak of the Nullity of the External Baptism and not only of the Effect and of Gods Engagement to them 2. And consequently I deny the two later Consequences 3. Yea if our Parents Infant-Baptism were null it followeth not that so is their childrens which they had on their account For our Parents might get a Personal Right in Christ and the Covenant after their Baptism before they presented us in Baptism though themselves had not been Baptized 4. And I believe it will be no easie matter to prove that our Parents any or many at least were notoriously ungodly at our birth 5. Lastly if all this satisfie not but any man will yet needs believe that it is an unavoidable consequence of our Doctrine that The Baptism of the Infants of Notoriously Ungodly Parents is null though I am not of hâ—s minde yet I think it is a less dangerous opinion and less improbable then theirs whom we now oppose I know no such great ill effects it would have if a man that mistakingly did suppose his Baptism Null to satisfie his Conscience were baptized again without denying the baptism of Infants or any unpeaceable disturbing of the Church in the management thereof I confess I never had any Damning or Excommunicating thoughts in my mind against Cyprian Firmilian and the rest of the African Bishops and Churches who rebaptized those that were baptized by Hereticks and in Council determined it necessary and were so zealous for it And though while I captivated my judgement to a Party and to admired Persons I embraced the new Exposition of Acts 19. which Beza thankfully professeth to have received from Marúixius who as some say was the first Inventer of it yet I must confess that both before I knew what other men held and since I better know who expound it otherwise and on what grounds I can no longer think that is the meaning of the Text especially when I impartially peruse the words themselves Calvin did not think that the 5th versâ— was Paul's words of John's Hearers but Luke's words of Paul's Hearers and had no way to avoid the Exposition which admitted their rebaptizing but by supposing that Paul did not Baptize them again with Water but with the Holy Ghost only and that of that the fifth verse is meant I never read that John Baptist did Baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus expresly and denominatively but only as Paul here speaks that they should believe on him that should come after whom Paul here Expositorily denominateth the Lord Jesus And the words When they heard this seem to me plainly to refer to Paul's saying as the thing which they heard Also the Connexion of the fifth verse to the sixth shews it For else there is no reason given of Pauls proceeding to that Imposition of Hands nor any satisfaction to the doubt at which he stuck or which he propounded And I confess if I must be swayed by men I had rather think well of the judgment of the Fathers and Church of all Ages who for ought I find do all that have wrote of it with one consent place a greater difference then we do between John's Baptism and Christs and did expound this Text so as to assert that these 12 Disciples were baptized again by Paul or on his Preaching And for that great and unanswerable Argument wherewith Beza and others do seek to maintain the necessity of their sense I confess it rather perswades me to the contrary For whereas they imagine it intolerable for us to conclude or think that Christ was not Baptized with Christian Baptism which himself did institute or command I must needs say I think it much more probable that he was not seeing the Christ an Baptism is Essentially a Covenanting and Sealing of our Covenant with God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as our Creator Redeemer and Sanctifier and appointed to be Gods Seal of his washing away our sins by Christs blood all which I know Christ was not capable of And I suppose it more credible that Christ himself should be the Instituter of such an Evangelical Ordinance than John and that he came to fulfill all Legal Righteousness rather than that Evangelical Righteousness which consisteth in obeying himself by doing those things which he hath appointed to redeemed sinners as such for their recovery But of this let every man judge as he is illuminated If I err my danger and deserved reproach I think is no greater than the Ancient Fathers and the Church for so many hundred years that were of the same mind Even they that were nearer to that Age when these matters of Fact were done But for our case its apparent there 's no need of Re-baptizing for there is no Nullity I have done with the Argument but yet there is one Question more that may not be passed over though but on the by and that is Whether the Baptism of all those persons be not Null and they to be Re-baptized who were baptized by such as were Notoriously or Secretly unordained men and no true Ministers To which I only say in brief No 1. If they were not known to be no Ministers it was no fault of ours we waited in Gods appointed way for his Ordinances and therefore though they were sins to them they are valid blessings to us that were not guilty 2. If they were Notoriously no Ministers though it might be our Parents sin that we were presented to such for Baptism yet it is not Null For in these Relations these Instruments are not Essential to the Relation nor to the Ordinance at all Though I would be loth as the Fathers and Papists did to allow a Lay person yea a woman saith Tertullian to baptize in case of Necessity yet should I not be very hasty to Re-baptize such supposinig that they had all the substance of the Ordinance as being baptized into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Argu. 10. Whoever ought in Duty to dedicate his Child to God in the holy Covenant ought also to Baptize him But all notorious ungodly men ought so to dedicate their children to God Ergo c. Answ. I grant the Conclusion It is every mans duty on earth that hears the Gospel to be baptized and give up his children if he have any to Christ in Baptism that is to believe and consent to the Covenant of Grace and so to be baptized But it followeth not that it is their Duty to be Externally Baptized without Faith and such Consent 2. Note also that this Argument as well proves that all the Children of persecuting Heathens should be baptized as ungodly pretended Christians For it is their Duty too Object But when they present their Children they do their Duty though but part
possibility of mens erring in such Cases as are committed to humane determination that will warrant us to condemn that way or to cast about for some more Infallible or easie course such contrivances will have but the Popish success and will lose us the credit of our honest just Authoritative decision while we will needs pretend to an Infallibility that the world may discern that indeed we never had it The common-course of quarrelling with all Government where there is a possibility or danger of any great abuse and evils thereby doth directly conclude in the simple rejection of all Government by man and almost any thing else that man must be the agent in for as long as such vile imperfect wretches are the Governors how can you think the actual administration will be perfect Get Angels to Govern immediately or stay till men be as Angels of God and then you shall have a cure for all these Inconveniences but till then expect not good without evil nor that so bad a creature as Man even the best of men should govern any Society or do any considerable work without leaving upon it the Impression of his sinfulness and many Imperfections 2. Having shewed what this Profession must be in the General and the Nature of the Act I must next shew what it must be Materially and in Specie as it is morally specified from the subject matter And in general the thing to be Professed is that the Professor is a Christian or that he is a true penitent Believer in Christ. Object It is not his own belief qua creditur which he is to make Profession of but the Christian belief quae creditur that is the Doctrine of the Gospel Answ. 1. This is a contradiction He that professeth the Gospel to be true doth eo nomine profess his own belief of the truth of it For will he profess it to be true when he takes it not to be true otherwise he either speaks but the words while he takes it himself to be false which he speaks or else he only meaneth or saith that other men think it to be true though he do not 2. We need not to ask any man for a profession to Evidence the Gospel to be true but only to evidence his own Belief of it The Gospel needs not their testimony much less a testimony which they beleeve not themselves which is as none 3. Infidels are meet to be admitted to Baptism if there be no Profession of their own faith required But I suppose I need not to use more words against this objection More partâ—cularly as Christianity in sensu famosiori is the saving entertainment of Christ in the soul and faith in sensu famosiori is that which is called Iustifying saving Faith and a Church member in sensu famosiori is such a true Christian so it is true Faith and Christianity whose Profession is thus necessary and if there be but a bare profession without the thing Professed these are called Christians or believers but Analogically or as our Divines commonly tell the Papists Equivocally The Faith thus to be professed must be considered in its Acts and in its Objects The first Act is the understandings assent to the truth of the Revelation upon the credit of the Revealer which Implyeth yea formally containeth a crediting of his Veracity and so an Affiance therein 2. A Consent or Willingness that Christ be ours on the Gospel terms or an Accepting Christ and life as offered which Scripture calleth the Receiving of Christ Jesus the Lord Joh. 1.10 11. Col. 26. which is stil implyed in the Affiance or Recumbency by which the Act of Faith is so oft entitled in Scripture and which must be added As the act of faith must needs be both of the Intellect and the Will so the Object must be answerably the Truth of the Gospel and the goodness of the benefits there revealed and offered The Church is more agreed about the particulars of the Latter then of the Former for as the Papists would make us believe that the Fundamentals and Essentials of the Christian Faith cannot be known as distinct from the rest but that all which the Pope saith is de fide is of necesâ—ity to salvation so among our selves we are not well agreed whether Fundamentals that is Essentials can be enumerated There is no doubt but we may easily enumerate them in General terms and so our whole Christian Faith is contained in our common Profession at Baptism I believe in God the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost If we yet descend to some particulars the case is clear that to believe in God the Father is to believe that he is the most Wise and Great and Good and our Maker and Ruler and our chiefest Good to believe in God the Son is to believe that he is God and man the Redeemer and Saviour ransoming us by his blood and overcoming death by his Death and Resurrection and procuring us pardon and everlasting life by his Merits to believe in God the Holy Ghost is to believe that he is the Sanctifier of the people of God that shall be saved Thus much is Evidently Essential to the Christian Faith and nothing but what is contained in this But then the great difficulty lyeth here whether a more particlar belief of some truths contained under these comprehensive terms be not Essential to Christianity To which I only say in general 1. That the belief of the Truth of the Promise or other verities being necessary in order to the determination of the Will to the Acceptance of the good revealed therein there is therefore so much of the doctrine of Necessity to be believed as is of Necessity to the determination of the Will to accept God for our God by Creation and Jesus Christ for our Saviour by Redemption and the Holy Ghost for our Sanctifier 2. All that is essentially contained in these Relative Titâ—es our God our Saviour and our Sanctifier must be particularly conceived of and believed 3. The foresaid Explicatory terms well understood seem to contain all such Essentials 4. He therefore that upon a true understanding of â—hem doth believe all these doth believe all that is Essential to the Christian Faith 5. Some persons can understand the Matter contained in these words without any more words having first the Grammatical and Scriptural Explication of them others have not yet had such Explications or at least understood them not and so must have more particular express expository terms that they may understand 6. It is Matter that is primarily Essential and Fundamental and that Propter se Words are to be called Essential or Fundamental but secundarily and propter aliud viz. so far as they are Means without which the Matter cannot be received but no further and therefore no particular words are properly fundamental or essential to our Religion seeing that he that never heard those words and yet believeth the matter by equiplloent terms or any
confessed their sins 1. He saith some will have it to imply no verbal Confession but virtual c. which gloss carrieth a strong Probability c. Answ. 1. Such presumptuous glossing contradicting the Text upon such inconsiderable reasons as is the multitude of the baptized deserves no answer 2. It is so much the stronger against him if Baptism be in the very reception a virtual Confession then no man can be Baptized without it 2. He addeth I require more an Engagement to leave sin which their taking on them the name of Christ doth Imply Answ. If the Engagement be only for some distance of time it is such as God accepteth not nor must we If it be an Engagement to forsake sin from that present time forward it is withall a plain Profession of present true Repentance or conversion and consent to leave it yea renunciation of it resolution to take it up no more More to this purpose followeth which I think contains nothing that requireth any more than what is said already to disable it Argum. 2. My first Argument was from the Necessity of a Profession of true Repentance the second shall be from the Equipollent terms or Description to the thing Described Thus. We must baptize no man that first professeth not to believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost To believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost is saving Faith if sincerely done therefore we must Baptize no man that first professeth not saving faith The Major is proved from Mat. 28.19 Where this is made the form of the words in baptism or at least the End and that which we must insist on Calvin on the words yields the Anabaptists that faith is put justly before baptism Nam alioqui Mendax esset figuraque remissionem peccatorum Spiritûs donum offeret incredulis qui nondum essent Christi membra And that non abs re patris filii spiritûs expressa hic fit mentio quia aliter baptismi vis apprehendi non potest quà m si à gratuita Patris misericordia initium fiat qui nos per filium sibi reconciliat deinde in medium prodeat Christus ipse cum mortis suae sacrificio Et tandem accedat etiaÌ„ spiritus sanctus per quem nos abluit regenerat Denique suoruÌ„ omnium bonorum consortes faciat It appeareth by comparing Mat. 28.19 with Rom. 6 3. and 1 Cor. 1.13 14 15 10.2 that to be baptized into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is not only to be baptized by their Authority but also to be thus Initiated into the Relation which the Church standeth in to them and to be consecrated to the Father Son and Holy Ghost as Musculus Diodate the Assembly of Divines Annotations and the generality of Expositors do express See Dr. Hammond Pract. Catech. l. 6. § 2. And especially on Mat. 28.19 Grotius at large and that it comprehendeth or presupposeth a Profession of believing in the Father Son Holy Ghost For no man can devote himself solemnly by our Ministry to the holy Trinity that doth not first Profess to believe in them Therefore the Church ever taught the Câ—techuâ—â—eni the Creed first in which they profess to believe in God the Father Son Holy Ghost And before they actually baptized them they asked them whether they believed in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost To which they must answer affirmatively or not be baptized And for the Minor that this believing in the Father Son and Holy Ghost is saving faith if sincerity done as it is professed is proved 1. In that to believe in God in Christ in the Holy Ghost signifyeth not only the act of the understanding barely assenting but also the consent and Assiance of the Will 2. True saving faith is so expressed in Scripture and the promise of eternal life is added to it Joh. 14.1 Ye believe in God believe also in me Joh. 1.12 To as many as received him he gave power to become the sons of God even to them that believe in his name where believing in his name is made equivalent with Receiving him and hath Adoption immediately annexed to it And all that are baptized must first Profess to believe in his name and so receive him and not only promise to do it hereafter Joh. 3.14 15 16. Whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have eternaâ— life But all that are Baptized must Profess to believe in him Joh. 3.36 He that believeth on the son hath everlasting life and he that believeth not the son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him He that will distinguish now and say that it is not this believing on the Son here mentioned which must be Professed by all that will be baptized but another believing on him which leaveth him among those that shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him must prove and explain his distinction better then those that have undertaken it have done Joh. 5.24 Verily verily I say unto you he that heareth my words and believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation but is passed from death to life If any words of Christ can put us out of doubt that believing in the Father and Son is saving faith these asseverations and plain expressions may do it especially being a thing so oft rehearsed So Joh 6.35 He that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth on me shall never thirst Verse 40. And this is the will of him that sent me that every one that seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life and I will raise him up at the last day Ver. 17. Verily verily I say unto you He that believeth on me hath everlasting life So John 7.38 and 11.25 26. and 12.44 46 and 14.12 Acts 10.43 To him give all the Prophets witness that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins Rom. 3.20 That he might be just and the Justifier of him that believeth on Jesus Rom. 45. To him that workâ—th not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness Rom. 9 33. Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed So 10 11. 1 Pet. 2.6 1 Joh. 5.10 Tit. 3.8 with many the like From all which it is evident that Believing on or in God the Father Son and holy Ghost is saving faith having more frequent and as express promises of life as anything whatsoever And it is believing in God the Father Son and holy Ghost that we must profess in baptism To this I suppose it will be answered for I know not what else can that there are two sorts of believing in or on God the Father Son and holy Ghost and the Texts mentioned speak of one sort which is saving and that which we must necessarily profess in Baptism is another sort that is a faith not joyned with Charity or
credere in Dominum nostrum credimus Filium Dei mihi quoque esse Dominum me quoque esse ejus subditum h. e. me quoque ejus sanguine esse redemptum servari perpetuò ac proinde me obligatum ei esse ad gratitudinem Dominium ejus mihi esse salutare me servari ab eo tanquam possessionem charissimam Pag. 229. Quid est credere in Christum crucifixum est credere Christum pro me factum esse maledictioni obnoxium ut me ab ea liberaret So Pag. 240. to the Question Quid est credere in Christum mortuum◠he gives more largely the like Answer And Pag 268. he gives the like answer to the Question Quid est credere in Jesum Cristum qui ascendit in coelum I am loth to weary my self others with citing Testimonies in a known case It s well known that this or to this purpose is the common Exposition of the Protestants of the Creed and Baptismal Profession and that they maintain it against the Papists to be true saving faith that is meant in the words I believe in God the Father in Jesus Christ in the holy Ghost I doubt not to cite forty forty more to prove this when any shall shew me that it will be worth the labor Yet I must say that I approve not fully of some of their descriptions of justifying or saving faith which they hereupon give in but yet they truly maintain that it meaneth saving faith I believe and if they had but put the Wills Consent to the severall Articles and Relations and works of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and our Affiance instead of a perswasion that they are ours c. I should have yielded to their descriptions I conclude then that believing in or on God the Father Son and Holy Ghost is an Act of the Will as well as of the Understanding and is saving faith And therefore all that profess this profess saving faith But all that will be baptized must profess this therefore 3. It is agreed by all Divines that I know Protestants and Papists that to believe in the Trinity is not only to believe in Gods Essence or the three Persons but also the Relations and great operations of each person for us As to believe in God the Father is to believe in him as our Creator and Soveraign Lord and chief Good To believe in Jesus Christ Is to believe in him as Redeemer and Saviour To believe in the Holy Ghost is to believe in him as a Sanctifier and as the great Witness and Agent of Christ. Now it is most certain that to Profess Assent and consent that God be my God Christ my Saviour the Holy Ghost my Sanctifier is to profess Saving Faith And bare Assent is not meant in the words believing in or on God as is proved by our Divines at large And if present consent be exprest saving Faith is exprest for no wicked man can truly consent that God shall be his God and chief good and Christ his Saviour to save him from sin it self as well as from punishment and the Holy Ghost his Sanctifier I may truly say according to that of Peter Martyr before cited that never any but a true believer that had Justifying Faith did truly say I believe in God but speak falsly in so saying To take God for his God is a thing that no man can truly do but those that are called effectually by his Saving Grace Argum. 3. The foregoing Argument was taken from the prerequisite Profession the next shall be taken from the very work it self viz. the Presenting and offering our selves to be baptized and willingly receiving baptism Thus If it be the very Nature or appointed Vse of the external part of Baptism it self yea essential to it to signifie and profes◠among other things the saving faith and Repentance of the Baptized being at age then true Baptism cannot go without such a Profession But the former is true Ergo so is the later The Antecedent which only requireth proof I prove thus 1. It is of the Instituted Nature of Baptism to be in general a Professing sign as well as an Engaging sign de futuro this I promise as granted by all Christians that I know of that have written of Baptism And then let us consider of the several parts of the sign or external Ordinance with the signification of each That it is essential to it to be significant and Obligatory on our part as well as on Gods part is commonly confessed And 1. The Minister doth baptize him into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and the party doth by himself or Parent consent thereto 1. Voluntarily offering himself to be so baptized and then 2. Voluntarily Receiving that Baptism And his offer of himself hereto goeth before the Ministers baptizing him and his Reception of that Baptism is Essential to it so that Baptism essentially containeth on his part a Signal Profession of consent to that which is meant in the form used by the Minister I baptize thee into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost And that is that God the Father Son and Holy Ghost be mine and I be theirs in the Relations in which they are offered in the Gospel to Mankind For all confess that it is a Covenant that is here Sealed and so a mutual consent which the Signs are Instituted by Christ to signifie Christ offereth himself to be Related to me as my Jesus Christ and by offering my self to Baptism and by voluntarily receiving it I do actually profess my Acceptance of his Offer that is of himself so offered God the Father offereth himself to be my God reconciled in Christ and so my chief good and by voluntary receiving Baptism I do signally profess my Acceptance of him so offered The Holy Ghost is offered to be my Sanctifier and Guide and by voluntary Reception of baptism into his Name I do signally profess my Acceptance of him so offered Of all which I shall say more anon And if this be not the Faith which is Justifying and saving then I know not what is yea I may boldly say then there is none such so that it it a most clear case that baptism as baptism according to it s Instituted Nature and use doth contain the Persons actual signal Profession of present Assent to the truth of the Gospel and Acceptance of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as therein offered And it containeth as our Divines commonly maintain an actual signal Profession that we there presently consecrate or Devote or Dedicate our selves to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost in the foresaid Relations 2. Another part of Baptism is the Ministers washing the Person and the Person first offering himself to be washed and after actually receiving it doth thereby signally profess his consent Now this washing doth essentially signifie our washing from our former filth of sin together with the guilt our putting off the old
I have no true faith I cannot believe Faith is a perswasion of Gods love to me or a resting on him for salvation and I cannot be perswaded of his love to me nor can I rest upon him And when I have convinced them that the Gospel is 1. a Narrative of what Christ is and what he hath done and suffered for us and 2. an offer of Christ and life to all that will accept the offer And therefore that faith is 1. an Assent to the truth of his Report and 2. a Consent to be Christs and that he shall be ours And when I have asked them whether they do these two things or not whether they believe the Gospel to be true and are willing that Christ and Life be theirs and that they be Christs they profess very cheerfully both this Assent and Consent they are wâ—lling to have Christ if they know their own hearts and yet they dare not say that they are true believers partly through general fears and partly because they know not that this which they profess is saving faith Now in such a case we are to let them know that it is the thing and not their Certainty of the thing that God hath mâ—de necessary And therefore we do not nor must not ask them in Sacramental Administrations whether they have saving faith by meer name without description but whether they believe in God the Father Son and the Holy Ghost and renounce the World Flesh and Devil and whether they are willing to have God for their only God and Christ for their only Saviour and the Holy Ghost their Sanctifier And he that saith yea doth profess a saving faith though he know it not so to be And what would Mr. Blake do with him if he say neither Yea nor Nay Having thus vindicated the Proposition against their Objections and shewed the vanâ—ty of all other waies and that we can have no certainty what Profession to expect if we expect not a Profession of saving Faith I may well sum up all and still insist on the 19th Argument that we must expect the profession of a saving Faith seeing if we take up with any other we are utterly at a loss Mr. Blake cannot agree with himself what faith to require nor hath given any certain description of it when he hath so voluminously talkt for it and what he or others seem to require as a thing distinct from saving faith we see sufficient Reason to reject as being wholly unproved and by us proved insufficient to this use I shall now therefore proceed to my 20th and last Argument for the Proposition which is drawn from the constant practice of the Universal Church of Christ. It hath been the constant practice of the Catholike Church since the Apostles daies till now to require that Profession of saving Faith and Repentance as necessary before they would baptâ—ze and not to baptize any upon the Profession of any lower kind of Faith Therefore it must be our practice also And here I must confess my self in as great an admiration at the words and dealings of Mr. Blake and some godly learned Divines that go with him in this Cause as ever I was brought to by the groundless confidence of such men He must shut his eyes against the fullest Evidence of Historie and Church-practice that will deny that it hath been the practice of the Universal Church of Christ to baptize upon the profession of a saving faith and not otherwise Insomuch that I must profess that I am not for my own part able to prove that ever any one person since the daies of the Apostles was baptized upon the profession of any other faith by any save the gross Hereticks even those whose Baptism was accounted invalid I desire Mr. Blake or his Neighbours of his mind to help me to an instance of any one approved Baptism since Christs time or his Apostles upon the account of a faith that was short of justifying and not upon the Profession of a justifying Faith Hitherto this is not done by them the contrary is fully done by others and yet to my admiration they as confidently affirm that all the Church of Christ hath gone their way or that it hath been their constant practice and that they should forsake the example of the Church if they should do otherwise and they except against my Opinion as novelty I must confess that such Experience hath brought me to lower thoughts of the credit even of good men than formerly I have had and to resolve to try before I trust One would think that the matter of fact in such a point as Baptism which we all pass through should have been out of question before this day For the proof of the Churches practice 1. I have already said enough about the Apostles own practice and the Church in their daies Even when they describe the faith which they require expresly by assent alone yet they shew that it is a saving Assent which they require and the promise of pardon and salvation is in the same or other Scriptures affixed to that Assent But this I shall not recite now 2. The constant practice of the Church since the â—postles to this day is undoubtedly known 1. by the very form of words in Baptism and 2. be the historie of their proceedings therein 1. It is certain that the Church did ever Baptize into the Name of the Father Son and holy Ghost And as I have proved before the voluntary seeking and reception of that Baptism containeth the actual profession of a saving Faith 2. It is certain that the persons to be baptized if at age did profess to believe in the Father Son and holy Ghost whâ—ch as is shewed is saving faith 3. It is also certain that they did profess to renounce the Flesh the World and the Devil which is a profession of saving Repentance 4. And it is certain that they promised for the future to live in new obedience which is the consequent of saving faith and thus they publikely entered the three stipulations Crediâ— Credo Abronuncias Abrenuncio Spondes Spondeo And no man can do this that hath not saving faith therefore the professing of it is not without the professing of a saving faith Nay indeed it containeth the profession of that faith 5. Moreover it is a known case that the ancient Churches commonly took all those that were duly baptized to be in a state of salvation That they supposed them to have the pardon of all their sins I think none doubteth that ever read much of their writings Davenant in his Epistle of Baptism giveth many proofs and many hundred more may be given if any be so blind as to deny it All the doubt is Whether they also ascribe Regenerating Renewing Grace to all the rightly baptized And though Davenant deny that they ascribe the infusing of habits to it as to infants yer 1. he denieth it not as to the Adult nor 2. that they ascribed
Pelagians and the â—ouncils that opposed them went all the same way which could not be the Pelagian way 3. It was the constant Doctrine of these Fatherâ—â—nd the Church then that Faith and Repentance given in 〈◊〉 did go first and that Justification Adoption and Sanâ—â—iâ—iâ—aâ—ion followed after And so hold all the reformed Divineâ— that I know of till Mr. Pemble lately contradicted it And so they took this Justifying Faith and true Repentance to be prerequisite to Baptism and therefore note 1. That all the forementioned terms describe only Justification and Sanctification 2. That they never speak a word of Justifying Faith or Repentance infused by Baptism for these are supposed 3. That therefore they ever enquired before hand whether they believed in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and renounced the Flesh the World and the Devil as is aforesaid and caused them to profess this before they would baptized them 4. The Fathers erred not so much as many suppose in their ascribing to Baptism For 1. sometime by Baptism they mean not only the external Ordinance but the whole work therein to be done viz. the Accepting Christ solemnly in Covenant and giving up our selves as a sanctified people to him renouncing the Flesh the World and the Devil and so becoming fully Christians This is baptism with them and not the outward sign alone And what saith Peter less when he saith Baptism saveth us and thus expoundeth himself when he hath done And what say the Fathers more 2. When they speak of these effects of Baptism they suppose a due recipient or subject that is A true Believer or the Seed of such and therefore they oft speak of the inefficacy of the outward Baptism to Hypocrites 3. When they speak of the outward Ordinance only the collation which they ascribe to it and all the great effects are to be understood but by way of obsignation and solemnization and not solely excluding the internal Faith and the Covenant as actual solemnized Marriage gives a woman right to her husband and all that he hath when yet she had a right by secret Covenant and Contract before Now common Reason and the Nature of the thing and many of the Contexts shewing that the Fathers and Councils must be thus expounded according to these Rules I would fain know how they deserve that heavy accusation that we commonly lay upon them for their Judgement in this or what ground the Papists have to plead them generally for their efficay ex opere operato And yet I will not excuse each particular person of them thus Object But it is the Baptism of the Adult that the Church hath generally ascribed so much to and therefore though they took all the Adult for Regenerate and Justified when baptized yet they did not judg so of Infants Answ. I will answer this in Mr. Gatakers words ibid. pag. 64. 1. Quae de Baptâ—smo in genere enunciantur etiam paedobaptismo conveniant necesse est quod sub isto comprehendatur 2. Baptismum unum eundemque agnoscere se profitentur veteres adultorum parvulorumque nec diversum in his ab illis effectum ejusdem 3. Etiam parvulorum Baptismi disertè meminerunt aliquoties ubi baptismo ista tribuunt 4. Axioma illud quod ab adversa parte urgetur tantopere de Sacramentorum effectis ubi obex non ponitur adversus ipsos cum primis valer Object But the Fathers sly to the Parents or pro-Parents faith when they speak of Infants right to Baptism therefore its plain that they supposed it not in themselves Answ. True By which you may discern that Faith was presupposed as the Evidence of their right to Baptism and its effects that is to Justification and Sanctification and therefore it was such a Faith as had the promise of these effects viz. Justification and Sanctification and therefore not another kind of faith And this faith was supposed to be in the Parent for himself and his seed because the condition or qualification of the Infant is but this that he be the seed of a Believer But then you must note that though they supposed the condition of Right viz. faith to be in the Parent and not in the Infant himself yet they alway affirmed the consequent fruits viz. Regeneration and Justification and Adoption to be in the Infant himself and not in the Parent for him I may answer this therefore in Mr Gatakers words ibid. pag. 65. Resp. 1. Aliud est fides ipsa aliud Regeneratio seu mentis internae renovatio quae sine fidei actu ullo consistere potest 2. Ad fidem Patres alienam adeò confugiunt ubi de parvulorum salute agunt quia fidei alienae beneficio foedere continentur ab Baptismiritum suscipiendum jus obtinent Vid. Bellarm de Bapt. lib. 1. c. 11. Prop. 5. Object But is it a likely thing that the Fathers and Catholick Church should be so blind as to take all for truly justified and regenerate that are baptized Then either they must take all the members of the Visible Church to be such and so be saved or else they must suppose them to fall away from saving grace Answ. 1. The supposition of falling away was too common with them though a few words on the by have fallen from some few of them that seem inconsistent with it 2. They did not take All Collectively to be justified that were baptized and Church-members but All Distributively or each single person 3. And that was onely by that judgement which is grounded on humane faith because they are bound fide humanâ to believe that he is a true believer that professeth himself so to be as all the baptized at age did 4. But when they came 1. to speak of All collectively 2. or of Hypocrites in general 3 or of any that did after discover themselves to have dissembled in Baptism particularly then they declare the uneffectualness of Baptism to those Hypocrites and that they took not all the Visible Church to consist of justified Ones but that the Hypocrites though baptized were but the chaff and the upright were the Wheat But it is but Hypocrites that they say this of and not men that never by themselves or their Parents or Pro-parents did so much as profess the Christian justifying faith but only a faith of another kind And as it is true of the Ancient Church that they never baptized any without the Profession of saving faith and Repentance so it is true of all the Christian Churches in the world that I can hear of to this day The Papists themselves do use the same words in Baptism as are afore expressed and require a Profession in the Parents or pro-Parents or the person if at age that they believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and that they renounce the Flesh the World and the Devil And though their false Doctrine force them to mis-expound their own words yet custom hinders them from changing them And about
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
God the Father Son and Holy Ghost be such to us as we profess them to be as aforesaid which is included in believing in God and in Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost And therefore the sum of the Covenant is I will be your God upon Redempition by Christ and you shall be my people Now the Notoriously Vngodly do either profess to believe and consent to all this or but to part If to All then they lye of which more anon If but to part then 1. it is not the Christian Faith no more then a heart or a lâ—ver is a man it is but part of it 2. and our Divines wilâ— say that he that doth not believe and consent to the whole Essence of Christianity doth not truly believe or consent to any Essential though for that I determine it not But were their Faith never so firm in any one part it is not Christianity or the Christian Faith without the whole If it be the Christian Faith to believe in God the Father only then those that deny Christ are Christians If it be the Christian Faith to believe only in Christ though they deny the Father or the Holy Ghost then men worse then Infidâ—ls or most Heathens are Christians Indeed there is so necessary a connexion that it is not possible truly to believe in God the Son without believing in the Father and the Holy Ghost and believing the Eternal Glory to which he hath Redeemed us and will lead us If it be Christianity to believe all the Creed by meer Assent then first the Devils are Christians for they believe and tremble Secondly and then it would be a Profession of Christianity to say I do believe Christ to be my Lord by right of Redemption but his Laws are so strict and cross to my pleasures that I am resolved he shall not rule me and I will venture all rather than I will take him for my Ruler on such terms Or to say I believe the Holy Ghost is the Sanctifier of Gods Elect but I will not consent that he shall Sanctifie me Or to say I believe that Christ dyed to save his people from their sins but he shall not save me from mine because I cannot spare them Who dare say that any of these were a Profession of Christianity We must believe with the heart if we be Christians Christianity is not a bare Opinion It lyeth in the covenant of the soul with God and it is the consent of the Will that is that covenanting It is therefore sometime expressed by loving Christ above all They that said This is the Heir believed in a sort with the Assent of the brain but when they add Come let us kill him that the Inheritance may be ours I think they shewed that they professed not Christianity He that saith I will not have this man to raign or rule over me disclaimeth Christianity He that disclaimeth an Essential part disclaimeth the whole It is not the Being without these part All this laid together shews us that Christianity or the Christian Faith truly and properly so called which denominateth a man properly a Christian is specifically distinct as to a moral specification from the faith of the highest unregenerate man When Mr. K. wrote a digression against me on a mistake that I had denyed this I did not think that others would so call me out to the defence of it And seeing that they differ by a moral specification it is clear that they admit not of the same Definition and that the term Faith or Christianity applyed to both these cannot mean the same thing but must here be an equivocal Thus I have cleared it that to profess the belief of one part of the Christian faith only is not to profess the Christian faith or to profess to be a Christian and therefore such are not to be baptized seeing we must baptize them into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost if we will baptize them with Christian Baptism 2. Next I shall shew that if any Notorious ungodly person do say he believes the whole even in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost such saying is not a true Profession nor valid to its uses To this end let us enquire what it is to Profess Profiteor is publicè fateor Fateor inquit Perottus est à fando quasi vehementer loquor affirmo Fateri enim est sponte aliquid affirmare Confiteri aliquo modo coactum Profiteri ad Gloriam aliquid prae se ferre Martinius rather a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicendus fandus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fatenda so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est sermo Now the natural use of speech is to signifie our mind to others And the very essence of a Profession lyeth in the open declaring of the mind in the very signifying use of the words or actions For it containeth as other signs do 1. The thing signifying or the matter of the sign and that is either words writings or other Actions capable of this use of which there are divers 2. the thing signified which is our Internal Assent and consent 3. The party to whom we signifie it 4. The actual signification or Aptitudinal that is that it be a sign Aptitudinal in it self and actual when rightly observed by others in which Aptitude lyeth the very formal nature of the sign This being so it is most evident that if it have not an Aptitude to signifie our mind it is not a sign You may say if he dissemble yet he may make profession yet profession is no sign of his mind I answer it is no true sign of the thing professed but the end which he pretendeth to use it for is to be a sign and as a sign we expect and receive it and did we know the heart as God doth we need not ask men whether they believe but presently go to their hearts and see and so baptize them or refuse them or their Children It being then the very use that the Church makes of mens profession to signifie mens minds it is clear 1. that where there is nothing that we can justly take as the signification of a mans mind that he believeth as a Christian there is no moral profession of it and where a man signifieth his mind that he doth not so believe there he professeth not to believe And if he make two contrary professions one that he doth believe and the other that he doth not if we know one to be certain and undissembled and the other to be false the later is Null and the former to be received All this being evident it next followeth that we shew that no Notorious ungodly man doth make true profession of Christianity For 1. If it be evident that he useth words not understood as a Parrat then is it not a profession For Ignorantis non est consensus and so nec Professio else a Parrat may be a Professor 2. He maketh openly the contrary Profession
For he doth by words or deeds or both profess that he will not be ruled by Christ that he will not be sanctified or released from his sin that he will not take God and Glory to come for his chief Good but the things of this life and will obey the flesh before God It it be in plain known sins which they can find no vain excuse for some of them will say words of equal force to these but though most will not do so yet their Actions openly profess it But because this is the thing that will be denyed I add further 1. Actions are capable of signifying a mans mind as well as words though not ordinarily so soon or easily yet some Actions do yea and much more certainly 2. God plainly tels us of some that profess that they know God yet in works they deny him so that works can speak as plain as words and deny God and unsay what a deceitful tongue hath said 3. If these persons in question do not thus deny Christ by their works or do not Profess to be no Christians then either it is because ungodliness is consistent with Christianity or doth not comprehend or imply Infidelity or else because the Notoriousness of this ungodliness is no Profession The first cannot be said For 1. As Godliness in a Christian sense comprehendeth Christianity and even the true acknowledgement of the God-head it self so ungodliness containeth the disowning of God and the refusing of all true Love of him or seeking him as our End and it comprizeth in it the refusal of Christ to bring us back to God and of the Spirit to conform our souls and lives to his Will As therefore God is the Ultimate End and Christ as Mediator but the means or way and as loving God is a more excellent duty than believing in Christ in it self considered so ungodliness which is contrary to the Love of God is a greater sin than unbelief in it self as to Jesus Christ the Mediator yea and ever containeth this unbelief as its second and lower part though it be denominated from the opposition to God as the greater part of the sin 2. However no man will deny but that they are concomitant and that every ungodly man is an unbeliever 3. Yea as ungodliness is contrary to our subjection to the Lord Redeemer it is a real part of Infidelity it self I may well conclude therefore that to be Notoriously ungodly is to be Notoriously no Christian but an Unbeliever 2. And that this Notoriousness is a certain profession is evident For 1. the mind is declared by it Christ himself telleth us that out of the heart come Murthers Adulteries c. and out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh If you say men may do such and such things against their will I answer 1. Then they are not Notoriously ungodly if they do not Notoriously shew their wilfulness 2. The Will hath the command of the outward man 2. And as it declareth the mind so doth it certainly declare it For first else still it were not notorious ungodliness 2. Words may be easier counterfeited than Deeds especially the scope of a mans life 3. And hence it is that the Lord Jesus himself when he comes to Judgement will try more by Deeds than verbal Profession and will reject such Professions when they are contradicted by evil actions as Mat. 7. Not every one that saith unto one Lord Lord shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven but he that doth the will of my Father Mat. 25. Christ will convince those by their not feeding cloathing c. his members that they were no true Believers who still go about to justifie themselves And they that shall say Lord have not we eat drunk c. Cast out Devils preacht in thy name shall be answered with a Depart from me ye workers of iniquity I know you not Men shall all be judged according to their works It is clear then that Notorious ungodliness is a Profession or signification of the very mind and will yea and a profession most certain for it cannot be dissembled He that is notoriously ungodly is most certainly no true Christian But the profession which this contradicteth is not so certain nay it is most certainly false So that as God doth so man must take mens works and lives for a Discovery of their mind and judge them by it I have stood the larger on this because that profession of Christianity is the common title that is pleaded for such persons and therefore I have shewed that they are not to be reputed for credible Professors If it be not a probable sign it is not to be taken for a valid profession But words contradicted by the Notorious tenor of the life are no probable sign but these works are a certain sign of the contrary Ergo. If any man yet do think that any words though not probably signifying the mind are a valid profession and to be taken for a Title then it will follow that if a man should laugh in your face and foretel you that he will come and make a profession in scorn of Christ or if he tell you that though he speak such words it is not from his heart but through fear or to get some honour with men or if when he baptized his child in the name of Christ he tell you that he intendeth not that he shall serve him or if he say of himself he will baptized in tht name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and renounce the world flesh and Devil but he intendeth not to stand to it nor to do as he promiseth c. any of these must be taken for a Profession and this man for a Christian which no wise man I think will affirm If an affirmation presently contradicted by words as express and certain be not to be taken for a profession then much less is an affirmation more certainly contradicted by the tenor of the life yea and too oft by professed impenitency The sum is this We must not baptize him into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost or his children for his faith who we are sure doth not believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost But such is every Notorious Ungodly man Ergo Or we must not baptize him or his child as a Christian that certainly decâ—areth himself to be none But so doth c Ergo. So much of the fourth Argument Arg. 5. We must not baptize those that certainly declare to us that they repent not nor any for their sakes But all notorious ungodly men do certainâ—y declare that they repent not unless equivocally Ergo. The Major is proved in that Repentance is a necessary condition in him that hath right to Baptism before â—od and the Profession of it necessary to him that we muâ—â— baptize The Apostles râ—quired it The Minor needeth no proof I think Arg. 6. We must not bapâ—ize him or any for his sakâ— that will
and Soul too than with the Soul alone this puts us upon a necessity of doing the more in a separation by Church power than else we should do Arg. 9. If no Children of notorious ungodly parents have Right to Baptism 1. then is their Baptism Null 2. And then ours is Null which we received on supposition of the Right of such parents And 3. then must many be baptized again For if Ministers had no power to do it it must needs be Null The determination of this Question about the nullity of Baptism depends upon the true definition of Baptism some only put Gods part and the Ministers into the definition and not the receivers act of profession covenanting or self-resigning to Christ taking him to be no Agent in the Essentials of the Ordinance but a recipient and that the Acts on his part are only Integrals or Duties necessary to his participation of the benefits of the Covenant If this definition hold most common with our Divines then the resolution is most easie For the Minister performed all that was essentiall to Baptism And therefore that which is undone is only the mans duty on his own or childs behalf that which was well done as to the act is not to be done again that is the Ministerial Baptism though sinfully misapplyed but that which was undone that is 1. the persons duty 2. and thereupon Gods Grant actually of the benefits According to this definition of baptism if through error a Pagan be baptized in the true form it is not Null as to that form of the Ordinance nor to be done again when he is converted but only his own duty was Null and to be done again For example if one that cannot speak our Language should be thought to profess faith in Christ by signs and be baptized thereupon and it after appear that it was no such profession but contrary so if we should mistake a Pagans child for a Christians I pretend not to decide the Question Whether this be the rightest definition of Baptism or best Answer to the present Doubt but if this hold as it is common all is clear against the pretended Nullity or re-baptizing 2. If it hold not let the Objectors answer themselves who say that a Dogmatical faith gives right to Baptism We have abundance of people that have not so much as a Dogmatical Faith that know not who Christ is nor what he hath done nor are they in most places since the Directory was in use called to profess their faith when they offer their children to Baptism Are the children of these persons to be re-baptized or themselves if it were their case or is the Administration of the Lords Supper to such a Nullity or only unprofitable I have had the aged here that have said Christ the Son of God was the Sun in the Firmament yet they have had both Sacraments Answer this for your selves 3. But suppose the persons covenanting be essential to Baptism let us so far advantage the Objectors as to deal with them on that ground Answ. 1. I distinguish between the Nullity of the external part commonly called Baptism containing the Ministerial Administration and the persons Reception of the Water and Washing with his profession or external covenant to God And the Nullity of Gods Engagement or Covenant to the sinner actually and so of the sinners Reception of the Benefits of Baptism Among which Benefits I distinguish the special and spiritual as pardon Adoption c. from the more common and external such as are the external Priviledges of the Visible Church Whereupon I answer first to the Matter in these following Propositions and then to the Argument as in form Prâ—po 1. If any essential part of the exterior Ordinance be wanting then it is Null As if the party he not more or less washed If he be not baptized into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost at least implicitely if not by full Verbal expression If the party use but the bare name of God while he professeth or openly discovereth that it is not indeed God the Father Son or Holy Ghost that he meaneth If he openly put in any exception against any essential part of the Christian Faith or Covenant as to say I will only be pardoned by Christ but not sanctified then I conceive it is no Baptism But if there be all the exterior Essentials there the exterior Baptism is not Null nor to be repeated 2. The foresaid exterior Baptism is effectual to the engaging or obliging of the person so baptized And so his own part of the Covenant is not Null A Dissembling promise bindeth the Promiser in Law for his dissimulation cannot hinder his own Obligation though it may anothers Nemini debetur commodum ex proprio delicto 3. But if there be not sincerity in the Covenanter beyond all this his Baptism is not available to the pardon of his sin or to convey to him a Râ—ght from God in any of the Covenant benefits directly as given to him common or special 4. Nor should the Minister or People believe this man if by Notorious Ungodliness he give them reason to take his present Profession to be false and himself now to dissemble 5. But yet seeing a Natural Profession it is though false and the falshood is not declared by him at that time in the Ordinance but disclaimed but only is declared before he comes thither therefore it seems to me that there is the whole external Essence of Baptism and therefore it is not Null nor to be Repeated But if that person do afterward come to the sense of his own Dissimulation and of the want of Truth in his Profession and Covenanting he is to do then that which he did omit before that is to Covenant Truly but not that which he did perform before that is to be externally Baptized Such a person therefore should in the face of the Congregation when he comes to Repentance bewail with the rest of the sins of his life that falseness in the Baptismal Covenant and there unfeignedly renew it To which end among others in the antient Churches it was usual in Confirmation to renew the Covenant more solemnly where any flaw was found in the Baptism which yet did not prove a Nullity 6. And for external Church Priviledges I conceive that as God doth not by Covenant give this person a right to them so it is the Ministers and Peoples Duty to deny them to the Parent himself while he continueth notoriously ungodly and the Error of wrong baptizing him or continuing him in the Church till now will not oblige them to continue communion with him But yet being admitted by Baptism he should be solemnly cast out But if the Guides of the Church be faulty and will not cast him out then must the people distinguâ—sh between communion with him as a Christian in general and as a member of that particular Church as also between communion Moral and meerly Natural and
so First they must avoid â—hristian communion with him in ordinary wayes wherein they are free as all private or voluntary open familiarity Secondly But if he intrude by the Pastors approbation into Publike communion in Prayer Prayses or Sacrament they ought not to withdraw from the communion of the â—hurch because of his presence First because they have the Liberty of esteeming him as they please Secondly because it is not their fault but the Pastors Thirdly and therefore it is but a Physical and not a Moral communion that they have with him Fourthly because they are bound to hold communion with the Church in the use of Ordinances And as for the Infant on that account baptized iâ— is so few acts of communion that an Infant is capable of that the question seems to be of no great moment how far we should have communion with them But I conceive we should take them as baptized persons externally and so far members of the Church though wrongfully admitted 7. To which purpose it is not altogether inconsiderable that the Minister being by Office the Baptizer and so the Judge of his own Actions whom he ought to Baptize and whom not the action is not Null though he mistake in his Judgement and apply the Ordinance to one that he should have refused For he doth but an act belonging to his Office though he do it amiss or on a wrong subject As if a Judge do pass sentence mistakingly yet may it be valid as to some execution For though he have no power given him directly to pass a wrong Judgement yet in order to passing a right Judgement he hath power to follow his own discretion and to pass such a Judgement as shall at least in tantum stand though it prove wrong I confess the Ministerial Power somewhat differeth from a strict Decisive Judicial power but yet there is so much resemblance as may serve to illustrate the matter in hand Object Then if a Minister Baptize a Heathen it is not Null because he is Judge whom to baptize Answ. 1. On the grounds we now go on it it a contradiction to baptize a Heathen that by a present profession is such For Baptizing essentially containeth the persons external Covenant or Profession of Believing in and Dedication to the Father Son and Holy Ghost If there be not by the person and Minister such a Dedication it is not Baptism for if the bare external Washing were Baptism then we were every day baptized Now he that is Baptized into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost doth thereby renounce Heathenism so far Though whether his Profession shall be credited dependeth on the probability of its verity or falsity But on the first mentioned Definition of Baptism it will be granted you that Baptizing a Heathen is not a Nullity as to the outward Baptism though it be unprofitable and sinful But to go on former grounds I further answer 2. It is one thing for a Judge to mis-judge a Cause that belongeth to his Judgement and another to mis-judge a cause that is wholly exempted from his Judgement and belongeth not to him In the former his Judgement may stand in divers cases because he was made Judge In the later it is wholly Null for he is but a Private man and hath nothing to do in the business and therefore whether he judge right or wrong it is Null As if a Judge go to another Bench or into another Circuit which is out of his Commission So here where a man layeth claim to Baptism and professeth himself a Christian the Minister is to judge whether he do it truly or falsly and therefore though he mistake the Baptism is not Null For though the man be notoriously ungodly yet it is supposed that the Notoriousness is not absolutely unquestionable and that the person doth not profess it when he comes to Baptism but deny it by professing Faith and Repentance and so though the Church have sufficient ground to discredit that profession by reason of hâ—s contradicting Life yet a Controversie it is while the person claims a Right in Baptism for his child and being a Controversie the Pastor is judge But if he baptize a Heathen that makes No Profession of Christianity true or false then he medleth in a matter exempted from his Power and out of his Commission and contrary to it and that which can be no Controversie fit for his determination and therefore it is Null and indeed no Baptism Object If the Pastor be thus Judge how can you say as before That the Notoriously Ungodly are ipso Jure Excommunicated Answ. 1. Ministers are limited in their judgement by the Law of God which telleth how far they may or may not Judge and how far it shall or shall not be effectual The people are not absolutely tied to follow their judgement when they err 2. God hath directed his Precepts for the avoiding of notorious ungodly ones to every Christian directly and not only to the Pastors directly and to the people only from them so that if a Pastor command us to have communion and familiarity with such we are yet to avoid them as far as was before expressed for all that because Gods command is contrary to the Pastors And the Law openly declareth that such are not true Christians or Believers and therefore a Pastors sentence cannot make them such His erring judgement may do more to bring a man into the Church than to keep him in and in keeping him in as to possession it may do more to the conveyance of those Priviledges which are to come meerly from his own hands and administration than those wherein the people are to be instruments Because he is more the Determiner of his own Actions such as are baptizing administring the Lords Supper c. than of theirs For his own Erring Judgement may ligare etsi non obligare entangle him in a kind of necessity of sinning till that Judgement be changed but it cannot tye them nor so necessitate them to sin though it may bring them under some inconveniences and for Order and the Peace of the Church they must quietly peaceably and submissively dissent By the Law of the Land the Kings Judges in his Courts and Assizes were the lawfull Judges of a Traitor that was brought before them and yet in some notorious Cases I suppose he is condemned ipso Jure and any man that can come at him might lawfully stab him without Judgement yea is bound to do it as if they had stood by and seen the Kings Person assaulted as the Lord Major of London did by Wat Tyler Or if it were not in defence but in avenging of the Treason if hainous and in several Cases they might kill them in a forcible apprehension if they resist as they did by the Powder-Traitors here neer us at Holbetch House But what need I mention these things when it is so commonly known that in several Cases the Law enableth us for
to be inconsistent if reduced into practice with the Purity of the Church and such as is unworthy the patronage of Godly learned men Yet in this I perceive his writings have success For I hear that some Reverend Godly men of his acquaintance are so confident that he is in the right that they marvel that ever I should hold the contrary and blame me as defending a principal point in the Independent cause The Lord enlighten us and pardon it to us which soever of us it be that is mistaken and doth wrong the Church of God There are four several Titles that are or may be produced to Baptism The first is sincere Saving Faith The second is the profession of such sincere Faith The third is a Dogmatical Faith short of Justifying Faith The fourth is a profession of that Dogmatical Faith I say that only they that have the Justifying Faith have a Promise-Right to Baptism properly so called which I called a Right Coram Deo but that the professors of such a Faith and their seed have an Analogical Consequential Right which followeth on Gods Precept to a Minister to Baptize them This I called Right Coram Ecclesiâ and is less properly a Right And that the bare word Right might be no occasion of quarrel I distinguished of Right and shewed how far I affirmed or denyed it But such distinctions and conclusions are nothing to the business with Mr. Blake but fittest to be passed by I conclude in a word that every professor of a Justifying Faith that doth not invalidate his own profession hath such a claim to Baptism for himself if unbaptized and his seed as the Church must admit But only the sincere Believer hath a Right from the Promise and shall be taken by God for one to whom he is actually as it were obliged by his Covenant But for the two later pretended Titles viz. A Dogmatical Faith not Justifying and the Profession of such a Faith I say they are no just Titles at all Not but that a man who hath meerly a Dogmatical Faith within may have a Title in Foro Ecclesiae but this Faith is not his Title but the profession of a Saving Faith so that if he profess only his Dogmatical Faith and not a Saving Faith the Minister ought not to Baptize him This is the brief of the state of the Controversie between Master Blake and me And did I think that any such Reverend Brethren would ever have approved his Judgement in such a cause Yea and some of them plead from the same effectual mediums which are alone sufficient to prove the contrary It s the course of Hilary and others against the Arrians Hierome Augustine and many more against the Pelagians and other hereticks to call them to the constant practice of the Church in Baptizing for the proving of the nature of that Belief that we are Baptized into and the quality of the subject I appeal to Christs institution of Baptism and the uninterrupted practice of all Churches that ever I read of on the face of the earth to this day and to the continued practice of the Churches in England and all the Reformed parties and all the rest of the Christian world If they do not generally Ethiopians Greeks Papists Protestants with one consent require the profession of a Justifying Faith I will quit this cause and tell Mr. Blake that I have been mistaken and cry him mercy Nay if Mr. Blake himself do not require the profession of a Justifying Faith in the Parent of all that he admits to Baptism I shall think him the only singular man I know alive in this business But if he practice contrary to all his confident Argumentations which shall we have respect to his opinion or his practice Where is the Church on earth that doth not Baptize into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and require in the adult or the Parent of Infants that they profess themselves at present to Believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost and to renounce the World the Flesh and the Devil And therefore they commonly cause them to profess the Articles of the ancient Creed before they do Baptize them which though it hath been lately disused by some I gladly heard some Reverend Ministers in London yet use which Creed as Parker de Descensu hath learnedly shewed is the exposition of the words of the Baptismal Institution and the sum of it is I Believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost I think not only Perkins but our Divines commonly against the Papists have proved sufficiently that the words I Believe in God the Father in Jesus Christ in the Holy Ghost do signifie Affiance as well as Assent And I should hope that I need not be put to maintain it that to Believe with Assent and Affiance in God the Father Christ the Redeemer the Holy Ghost the witness and Sanctifier renouncing the Devil the World and the Flesh is certainly Justifying Faith at least If they that say they thus Believe do so indeed I dare not be he that shall tell them they are yet condemned and deny them to be the justifyed members of Christ. If they will not so much as profess thus to Believe yea and to Repent I will never Baptize them or theirs upon theâ—r account Will Mr. Blake himself Baptize them that will not thus profess would ever the Church of Christ Baptize any but such and yet some Reverend Brethren tell us that the Church universally hath gone Mr. Blakes way against that which I insist on Now the Lord have mercy upon all our infirmities and pity his poor Church and bring his servants to so much Unity that the universal practice of the Church in all ages and Nations even among our selves which we daily hear and see and our own selves practise may not be among us a matter of controversie for then what are we likely to be agreed in Again I must crave pardon of this confidence but if it seem to them to come from self-conceitedness and pride of my own judgement or a loathness to let go what I have once received as I willingly confess that I find such sins within me and am no Christian if I blame them not and hate them not in my self so I will be bold to tell Mr. Blake and the world the very truth in this business which is that the partiality that I have felt in the study of this point hath been for Mr. Blakes opinion against my own and I had rather a great while till the light convinced me have found his opinion true than my own As I knew I should be taken for a defender of the Independants which is a censure that I little regard so I thought that I should the better comply with some Texts of the old Testament which Mr. Blake much urgeth and some other reasons did cause Mr. Blakes opinion sometime so far to smile upon me that I strove against the contrary truth and studied
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
Reason for Doctor Owen's Indignation and less for his gross mis-reports and Socinian parallel to pag. 488 The causlesness of Mr. Blake's tears and trembling pag. 489 His untrue reports of my self of the profaneness of the Worcestershire Combinations p. 500 His untrue and dis-ingenuous report of my abusing Mr. Ball p. 500 The complexion of the rest of his Dispute not yet answered p. 501 A brief discussion of his doctrine of the Faith that entituleth to Baptism pag. 502 to 513 The impotency of more of his Accusations pag. 513 514 The substance and quality of Mr. Robertson's Epistolary Disputation pag. 515 516 His implacable kindeness and dreadful Protestation pag. 517 Of Punishment and mental Remisson pag. 518 519 Of a creeping MS. p. 520 Of the triumphing Dream of Dr Owen and Mr Blake of the terrible Conditions which I impose on my Answerers in the Preface of my Confession p. 521 The first Disputation Quest. Whether Ministers may admit persons into the Church of Christ by Baptism upon the bare verbal Profession of the true Christian saving faith without staying for or requiring any further Evidences of sincerity Aff. IN almost all our controverted Cases the Church still findeth the mischief of Extremes and among the rest in this about the due qualification of those whom we must admit to the Sacraments Some will not look after saving Faith at all but have found out a Faith of another species which they call Dogmatical which they take to be the Title to both the Sacraments Others while they look after saving faith will not take up with that Evidence of it a bare Profession which God in Scripture hath directed them to accept but they must either pretend to search the heart or stay for some better Evidences of Regeneration The confuting of these last shall be the business of this Disputation and the confuting of the former shall be the matter of the rest We here suppose that Baptism is a standing Ordinance of Christ and that the use of it is to be the sign of our Entrance into the Church of Christ not only solemnizing our Covenant with God in which upon our consent we were before secretly entred but also investing us in our Church honours and priviledges For as the Prince doth by a sword conferr the order and honour of Knighthood which he might do before by private Grant or as a man doth by a Key deliver to a Tenant the possession of a House or by a twig and turf the possession of Lands so doth God by Baptism deliver to the true Believer the honorable order of Christianity and power to be a member of Christ and his Church and a son of God and therewith he delivereth him the pardon of his sins and other Priviledges of his people Though to them that come without this saving faith there is only an Offer of the Internal Benefits from God and no Delivery of possession and only a Ministerial delivery of the possession of the external priviledges without that Title which before God will warrant their Claim anh Reception though there be enough in the Ministers Commission to warrant his delivery upon that Claim It is here also supposed that it belongeth to the Ministerial Office to Baptize and by Baptizing to admit persons into the visible Church And this is not the smallest part of their Trust and Duty and Honour nor the least of the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven which is committed to their care Ordinarily none can be admitted into the visible Church or made a visible Christian as thus listed among such but by the Office of the Ministry And therefore the Minister is made the Judge of mens aptitude to this honour for no man must act against or without the conduct of his own Judgement And therefore to whomsoever it belongeth to Baptize ordinarily to them it doth belong to judge who is fit to be baptized It may be thought that it is a very great power that Christ hath herein conferred on his Officers and that it may be easily abused to tyranny while every Minister shall have power to refuse persons their visible Christianity or the badge of it and so to make Christians as they please But first they are tyed up themselves by certain Rules as we are further to shew in this Dispute and secondâ—y if one should tyrannize there are enow more to relieve us thirdly there is no power but may be abused but yet it must be trusted somewhere and into what hands should Christ have fitlier put it than into theirs that are by Gifts and Offices fitted for the trust I have marvelled sometime when I have heard secular Rulers on one side and the People on the other side cry down the Ministerial power of excommunicating or so much as keeping from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper that they did not as much or more contend against their Power of Baptizing and Judging who should be admitted into the Church But I think the reason is because Ministers admitted all so generally that they were not awakened to the observation of their power herein nor to any jealousie of them left they should as they call it tyrannize But undoubtedly they might as fairly say that it belongeth either to the Magistrate or to the Bishop alone or to the Major Vote of the Congregation to Baptize or Judge who shall or shall not be baptized and so admitted into the honour of visible Christianity and Church-membership as to say that it belongeth to the Magistrate or the Bishop alone or the people to excommunicate or to judge who shall be excommunicated For the Power of taking into the Church Universal is as great as that of putting out of a particular Congregation And Christ gave the Keyes conjunctly and not dividedly and therefore he that hath the admitting Key hath the Excluding Key Had our people but well considered what Interest the Ministerial Office hath in their very Baptism and Christianity and that they cannot be New-born into the Kingdom of God without the help of these Midwives at least and Scripture gives them also the Title of Parentage they would then have discerned that by their very Baptism they are engaged to the Ministery subserviently to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost to whom they are principally engaged For as the Liturgie speaks they are Dedicated to God by our Office and Ministery and they have their visible state in the Christian Church and Possession of its Priviledges delivered to them by our Office and Ministery and therefore me thinks they should well bethink themselves before they renounce it and despise it till they dare renounce and despise their Baptism and those that do that I do not much wonder if they renounce our Ministery Furthermore It is here supposed that a Profession is necessary before we may admit men to Baptism and that this must be a profession of the true Christian saving faith and not only of some other sort of faith And we
take it for granted that the aged are admitted upon their own profession and the Infants upon the profession of the Parent by whom he hath his Title to the Covenant even as he is the seed of a believer The Question then that we have now to discuss is only concerning the sufficiency of this Profession as to the satisfaction of the Baptizer without any further Evidences of sincerity For the explaining and resolving whereof I shall first shew you what that Profession is which we require and shall be satisfied in and secondly I shall prove the Affirmative of the Question And for the first I shall first shew you what Profession is in general and the formal nature of the thing and the requisites thereto Secondly I shall shew you what this Profession must be in specie as it is specified from the subject matter of it And first Profiteor is but palam fateor in the common acception of the word In civil cases prositeri est publice apud acta aliquid ultro denunciate ut Calv. More especially professio is sometimes ad interrogata responsio and sometimes sponsio and in military affairs it is nomen dare Ours in question hath something of all these conjunct It is a solemn voluntary declaration expression or confession of our faith in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost in answer usually to the Interrogation of the Minister with a giving up our name to God by solemn sponsion and renouncing the Flesh the World and the Devil or in general all inconsistent wayes Profession is a relative action and hath in it somewhat Material viz. the Action and somewhat Formal viz. the Relation which must be distinctly considered of For Profession is a signification of a mans mind concerning the thing professed The Action which is the Matter of the sign is not necessarily one and the same thing in all and at all times The common action is by word of mouth Where that cannot be had as from the dumb it sufficeth that they express by writing where that cannot be had the lifting up of the hand or motion of other part of the body or any thing that is apt to signifie what is in the mind may be a just Profession And if word writing and corporal motion be all joyned together it is but the matter of the same Profession God hath tyed us to no one particular sign as necessary nor restrained us from any by his Word but only as the general Directions of doing all things Orderly decently to edification c. may be an Obligation or restraint but the more particular Direction must be fetcht by Christian prudence from the Light and Law of Nature it self The nature of the thing with concurrent circumstances will teach us which is the fittest sign And sometime the commands of our Teachers or Governours may determine that case it being a matter within their power to determine according to Gods general Rules The formal Reason of a Profession is that it be signum mentis aut verum aut et si ementitum tamen apparens if it be only a seeming sign or counterfeit it is truly a Profession but not a true Profession I mean it hath a Metaphysical verity inasmuch as it is an action apt to signifie the mind and doth signifie that which the man would have you think to be his mind but it is not morally true but false because it doth not signifie that which is his mind indeed All words are to be signa mentis but when a man lyeth his words are truly words though not true words and he doth speak that which he would have you take to be his mind though not that which is so c. he useth a sign that is apt and appointed for the expression of the mind though he abuse it to the concealing of his mind and the deceiving of the Hearer Yet if any will insist upon it that it hath not the formal Reason of a Profession unless it be true and agreeable to the mind let such know that we take the word in a larger and commoner and I think fitter sense even for that which a pretended to be a true sign of the mind whether it be indeed true or not Yet still pretended it must be to be a true Discovery of the mind and to that use it is that the Minister must receive it and thence it comes to pass that there are besides the bare words writings and some modifications which are of necessity to the very consâ—iâ—ution of a real Profession and without which it cannot properly be called a Profession or may not by a Minister be taken for such Concerning which 1. I shall enqure further Whether this be so or not 2. What those Modes or concomitant Acts must be 1. And for the first the reason of the doubt is because some conceive that Profession is so far required for it self or for some other end I know not what as that it is not to be lookt at or required as a seeming or probable evidence of the thing professed Mr. Blake Treat of Sacr. p. 129. saith of me His Grand Rule is That a serious Professor of the Faith is to be taken for a true believer If this Proposition were a Scripture Maxime then it would have born a further superstruction but being neither found there nor any proof made that it is any way deduced thence mother and daughters may all justly be called into question I do yield that charity is to hope the best but that we should put our charity to it or our reason either for probability or certainty when we are nowhere so taught and have a more sure Rule for our proceeding I see no Reason I can scarce meet with a Minister that saith and I have put the question to many of the most Eminent that I know that he baptizeth any Infant upon this ground of hope that the Parent is Regenerate but still with earnest vehemence professeth the contrary Answ. 1. That serious Profession of true faith is to be taken by us as a probable Evidence of the thing Profest till men forfeit their credit I shall God willing prove anon from Scripture And if I did not before stand to prove it from Scripture I desire Mr. Blake as he findeth cause by the following evidence to impute it either to my disability or my modesty If he find that I now prove it not let him tell the world that I could not but let him not thence conclude that it is not true for another may prove it if I cannot but if I now prove it let him impute the former omission to my charity which provoked me to hope that with such as he and so many as he here intimateth it had not been necessary nay I thought it had been out of controversie with us 2. If he yield that charity is to hope the best Why not then to be put to it Is it not put to it when it must hope
signs is truly a â—hristian 7. The Essentials primary in the Matter are to all the same but the Terms of Necessity for expressing them are not the same to all either for number of words or sentences seeing one can receive that in ten words anoâ—her cannot in twenty And hence is it that if twenty men be set to draw up the Essentials of Christianity they may do it in twenty several forms of words and yet all express the same essâ—ntial Matter and one Confession may be in ten lines and another in more pages and yet both speak the same Fundamental Truâ—hs one more concisely or generally and the other more copiously and plainly 8. Whatever other words may be necessary to some besides those that directly express the above-said Matter of Belief in God the Father Son and Ghost they are not to this end necessary that we may have more matter of Faith than is there contained as if it were not all that is essential but that this may by the ignorant be better understood so that those other particular Articles which some call Fundamentals are but expositions of those three Fundamentals that indeed we may receive them 6. In point of duty a Minister must require a more full and large expression of his Faith from one man than from another viz. From those that he hath apparent cause to suspect of not understanding or not believing what the more Comprehensive Concise Terms do express but yet if either he neglect that duty or his previous inquiry and examination though sinfully or if the party that gave no cause of suspition be yet ignorant or an unbeliever it doth not follow that the Concise Profession was a Nullity for want of larger Explication He that professeth to believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost hath made a Profession of saving Faith in all the Essentials as to the sense of the words and it is to be taken as valid in foro Ecclesiastico in the Judgement of the Church if there be not some of the above-named particulars apparent to invalidate it as Contradiction apparent Ignorance Derision c. May it not be the safest way to imitate the Scripture examples in such cases where we alway find Profession in order to Baptism made but in few comprehensive terms for as by this way we follow the surest Guid so are we most likely to comprehend all the Essentials and leave none out when spinning out a Profession to a Volumn in more particular Explicatory termes if these same generals be not among them may leave out much of the Essence of Religion which these do comprehend Not that I would have the people hear no longer discourses for Explication but it is one thing to put them into a Sermon or Discourse and another thing to put them into the Profession of Faith If notwithstanding all that is said any shall still be prejuced against the requiring of a Professon of saving Faith because of the difficulty of discerning when it is that all the Fundamentals are professed let such consider that it doth as much concern those that differ from us to untye this knot if they can as us We have long shewed the Papists that themselves must be forced to distinguish between those points of Faith which some may be saved without and those which none can be saved without and so indeed Bellarmine and others of them confess And those that say it is a Dogmatical Faith that must be professed must needs comprehend all the aforesaid Essentials in their Dogmatical faith or else they cannot call it the Christian Faith So that as to the Object of Assent they are equally concerned in the difficulties 2. And then for the second part of Faith which is the Wills consent or Affiance or Entertainment Receiving Acceptance Embracing or what other term to that purpose you will use of the Good proposed in the Gospel the same forementioned words do also comprehend all that is Essential to the Object of this Act for the Will as well as the Intellect to Believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost is all our Faith that is To receive God as our God our Creator our Soveveraign and Felicity and Jesus Christ our Saviour from the guilt and power of Sin and to bring us to everlasting Glory and this by Ransoming us by his death and merits By Rising Interceding Teaching Ruling us and at last Raising and Judging us and to receive the Holy Ghost as the witness of Christ the inspirer of the writers of his Word and as our Sanctâ—fier Thus is the Object of true Christian faith expressed as containing the Objects of the Will To conclude in a doubtfull case it is safe to be as express and particular as we can in our Instructions and Examinations and not barely to keep to the meer Essentials because there are many of the Adjacent truths or superstructures which are of so great use as that the fundamentals are hardly and seldom well entertained without them And yet when we play not the part of Instructors and preparers but of Administrators of Gods Ordinances then we must take heed of exacting more as necessary then is indeed necessary and in difficult Cases when the difficulty lyeth in the Darkness of the persons heart and you doubt by reason of the scantness of his expressions whether he believe as he speaketh we must give credit to his own words as far as reason will permit and to judge the best though we may fear the worst and this will be our Duty and if we should be deceived it will not prove our sin but his that makes the false profession And this leadeth me up to the next part of my Task which is having thus explained the Nature of the requisite Profession to prove the Affiâ—mative of the Question THESIS Miâ—isters mâ—y admit persâ—ns into the visible Church of Christ by Bâ—ptism upon the bare Verbal Profession of the true Christian saving faith such as before described without staying for or searching after any further Evidences of sincerity ordinarily and as of necessity to this end This Proposition I prove in short by these Arguments following Argum. 1. We have the warrant of their approved Example in Scripture whom we are to eye as our Pattern in Administrations for the administring of Baptism upon a bare Verbal Profession therefore we may so Administer it I here suppose the Practice of the Church before Christs Incarnation which is out of all doubt Moses took the Verbal profession of all Israel to be a Covenant between God and them wherein they avouched the Lord to be their God and God avouched them to be his people On the like terms did Joshua Asa and others renew the Covenant of God with that people and on the same terms was circumcision administred On these terms did John Baptize multitudes whose lives he knew not before and of whom he required no further Evidence than these present Professions to satiâ—fie him of their
as to their more profitable use of Ordinances but make no other conditions of their Right then God hath made 4. It is onely a Profession that 's serious voluntrary not contradicted prevalently by word or life which you must take as is before described And do you take it to be so unreasonable a matter to believe a man fide humana who speak's of his own heart which another cannot see when you can bring no evidence to disprove his words If you know any thing by his life that certainly proves his Profession false admonish him of it in the order that Christ hath directed you to till he either hear the Church or be rejected by the Church or at least by not hearing the Church do give you cause to take him as a Heathen or Publican but be not so much against the Scripture and 2. All discipline that ever the Church hath used And against common justice and reason as to do this by men on your own private judgement without evidence and a just tryal and once hearing them speak for themselves and many do that will unchurch a whole Parish and gather a new one on supposition of the invalidity of a bare Profession and on supposition that most are ignorant and ungodly before they have ever once accused them particularly or dealt with or excluded any of them in the way that Christ appointeth If I certainly knew that in this Parish there were 4000 unregenerate Persons and not 400 or 100 truly regenerate and yet knew not particularly which the unregenerate Persons were I ought not to cast out one man from the Church upon any such account Object But with what comfort can the Godly have communion with the societies that are so mixt with multitudes of the ungodly Answ. If they do not their duty in admoishing the offenders and labouring to heal the diseased members and to reform the Church in Christs appointed way Mat. 18.17 Then you may well ask With what comfort can such Professors live in the sinful neglect of their own duty But if they faithfully do their own part how should the sins of others â—e their burden unless by way of common compassion And how have Gods servant in all ages of the Church to this day received comfort in such mixt Communion These Objectors shew that they seek more of their comfort in men then is meet or that they discomfort themselves with their own fancies when they have no cause of discomfort given them from without but what must be born to the end of the world by al that wil walk in the waies of Christ. Object But it is the Communion of Saints that we believe and must endeavour Answ. True internal spiritual Communion with hearty Saints and External communion with professed Saints For real Saints in heart are unknown to us Ob. But the greater part do not so much as Profess to be Saints Answ. They that profess to believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and to renounce the world the Flesh and the Devil do profess to be Saints so do they that profess to repent of all sin and to be willing to live according to the word of God But I meet but with very few that will not profess all this Object They will say these words indeed but in the mean time they will scorn at godliness or disclaim it by their lives Answ. Those that do so must be dealt with in Christs way as Church-members till either they hear the Church or be rejected for their impenitency but you must not dare upon this account to unchurch whole Parishes nor ordinarily any one Person that hath not been dealt with in the order that Christ hath appointed To conclude this Disputation I find that the two things before mentioned are great occasions of the proneness of many godly people to schism The one is because they do not understand that Christ hath so contrived in it the Gospel that every man shall be either the Introducter of himself by Profession or the Excluder of himself by the rejection of Christianity And so that all Church admissions or rejections shall be but the consequents of his own choice that the chief comfort or the blame may be upon himself And this is partly from the admirable freedom and extensiveness of Gospel Grace which the sons of Grace should glorifie and rejoyce in and not murmur at and dishonour and partly from the wise dispensations of our Legislator that he may deal with men on clear grounds in their absolution or condemnation before all the world 2. The other cause of the schismatical inclination of some godly people is the great mistake of too many in confining all the fruits of Christs death and the mercies or graces of God to the Elect and so not considering the difference that there ever was and will be between the visible Church of Professors and the invisible Church of true Believers Alas Brethren in the name of Christ let me speak it to your hearts do you grudge a few common Priviledges to common Professors when you have the best and choysest part your selves you have Christ himself and do you grudg them the name of Christians or the bare symbole or signs of his body and blood You have sincerity of faith and Repentance and answerably you have true Remission and Reconciliation They have the profession of Faith and Repentance and do you grudg them the empty signs of a Remission which they have lost by their hypocrisie and Unbelief You have Inward communion with Christ in the Spirit as you have Inward faith Do you grudg an Externâ—l communion with the Church to them that have the External profession of Faith O Remember that the Net of the Gospel bringeth good and bad to the shore and the tares must grow with the wheat till harvest and then is the time that you shall have your desire The second Disputation Quest. Whether Ministers must or may Baptize the Children of those that Profess not saving faith upon the Profession of any other faith that comes short of it IT may seem strange that after 1625. years use of Christian Baptism the Ministers of the Gospel should be yet unresolved to whom it doth belong yet so it is And I observe that it is a Question that they are now very solicitous about And I cannot blame them it being not only about a matter of Divine appointment but a practical of such concernment to the Church I shall upon this present occasion give you my thoughts of it as briefly as I can which contain nothing that I know of which is new or singular but the Explication and Vindication of the commonly received truth We here suppose that Baptism is still a needfull Ordinance of Christ and that Infants are to be Baptized and that Ministers are the persons that should Baptize them so that it is none of our work at this time either to defend the Ordinance it self against the Seekers nor the
by combinations of schoolmasters We confess also that the Church is but one as well as they that they are to make the same profession and use the same worship in regard of which they are called visible members and the Church a visible Church as by reason of their faith and the spirit within them it is called invisible as if we should distinguish a man into visible and invisible in respect to his body and soul which make not two men we confess also that there is an ineffectual faith of assent that goeth without a hearty consent and that many are to be admitted by us into the visible Church by Baptism by solemnization upon a bare Profession who have not faith either of one sort or other And we confess that such as so remain in the Church do live under those benefits and means which have a special tendence to their true conversion But yet we very much dâ—ffer in this The Papists make the Primary sense of the word Church to be of the visible Church as the samosius significatum and therefore they say that to be entred by Baptism 1. Into a Profession of assent 2. Into communion in Ordinances and 3. Under one and the same Government or external policy is all that is requisite to make a Church-member But we say that the first and famosius significatum is the whole multitude of true Believers that have the spirit of God and his saving Grace and that it is one and the same Church that is called first mystical as being called out of the world to Christ by true faith and then visible because of their Profession of that same faith and therefore if any Profess that faith who are without it these are members but secundum quid or equivocally as the hair and the nails are members of the body which indeed are no members in the proper and first sense or as a wooden leg is a member or as a body without a soul is a man or as the peas or chaff and straw are corn The body may be said to be part of the man when it is animated but a corps or body that never was animated is not properly a part the straw and chaff are called part of the corn-field though indeed but appurtenances to the corn but if there were no corn they should have no such title and when they are separable they shall lose it Moreover t is not a Profession of the same faith that the Papists and we maintain to be necessary to Church entrance For they require as necessary only a Profession of the Dogmatical or Historical faith of Assent aforesaid with a consent to subjection and use of Ordinances But we require a Profession of that faith which hath the promise of pardon and salvation They take their Church-entrance to be a step towards saving conversion and formed faith we take it quoad primam intentionâ—m Christi ordinantis to be an entrance among the number of the converted true Believers and that it is accidental through their failing and hypocrisie that any ungodly are in the Church and so enjoy it's external priviledges and that if we could know them to be such they should not be there it being the work of the Gathering Ministry to bring men to true faith and repentance and of the Edifying perfecting ministry to build them up and bring them on And the Papists themselves having received by Tradition a form of words to be used in Baptism which are sounder then their doctrine and which in the true sence do hold forth all that we say are put to their shifts by palpable mis-interpretation to deprave their own form They do themselves require of the Baptized a Profession that he believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost and when we prove that this is justifying faith and that to believe in doth signifie Affiance the Papists say it is but a naked Assent or Historical faith and when themselves require the â—aptized to â—enounce the Devil the world and the flesh they say that this signâ—fieth no more but that at present they profess so far to renouâ—ce them as to enter into the visible Church as the way to a future saving abâ—enunciation And when themselves do dedicate the person to Christ they say it is but directly to his Church that is to leave the world of Infidels and be numbred with the visible Church as the means to a saving sanctification And these notions they have filed and formed more exactly of late than heretofore to make the snare more apt to catch the simple still magnifying to the uttermost the visible Church-state as the only way to a state of justification and salvation But yet as our Divines have observed against him Bellarmine himself when he hath superficially pleaded his own cause doth frequently in the pleading it let fall such words at unawares that do destroy it and grant what we say As lib 3. de Eccles. cap. 10. he saith Verissime etiam dici potuisse ecclesiam fidelium id est eorum qui veram fidem habent in corde unam esse ecclesia enim praecipuè ex intentione sideles tantum colligit cum autem admâ—scentur aliqui ficti qui vere non credunt id accidit praeter intentionem ecclesiae Si enim eos nôsse posset nunquam admitteret aut casu admissos continuò excluderet yet I confess it is but his nudus ascensus or fides informis that he seemeth here too mean I pray you read over especially his 9. Chap. ibid. There pag. 227 he answereth one of our Objections thus Ad ultimum dico malos non esse membra viva Corporis Christi hoc significari illis scripturis Ad id quod addebatur igitur sunt aequivocè membra c. a multis solet concedi malos non esse membra vera nec simpliciter corporis ecclesiae sed tantum secundum quid aequivocè Ita Johan Turrecremata l. 1.57 ubi id probat ex Alex. de Ales Hugone D. Thoma idem etiam docent Petrus à Soto Melchior Canus aliiâ—qui tamen etsi dicant malos non esse meÌ„bra vera dicuÌ„t nihilominus verè esse in eeclesia sive in corpore ecclesiae esse simpliciter sideles sen Christianos neque enim solae meÌ„bra sunt in corpore sed etiam humores dentes pili alia quae non sunt membra Neque sideles aut Christiani dicuntur tales à charitate sed à side sive ù fidei profesâ—ione It appeareth then that the Papists are put of late to refine this fundamental doctrine of theirs from the soundness that it formerly had among themselves and to fit it more to their own turns And I blame them not because their whole kingdom lyeth on it and would be subverted utterly if the foresaid exposition hold which is so much like to ours It s a cutting objection which turned Bellarmine out of his rode At si ita est
sequitur pontificem malum non esse câ—put ecclesiae alios episcopos si mâ—li sunt non esse capita suarum ecclesiarum Caput enim non est humor aut pilus sed membrum quidem praecipuum This put him on distinguishing and yet at last he could bring it but to this Dico episcopum malum presbyterum malum Doctorem malum esse meÌ„bra mortua perinde non vera corporis Christi quantuÌ„ attinet ad rationem meÌ„bri ut est pars quaedam vivi corporis tamen esse verissima membra in ratione instrumenti id est papâ—m episcopos esse vera capita c. ratio est quia membra viva constituuntur per charitateÌ„ qua impâ—i carent at instrumenta operativa constituuntur per potestatem sive ordinis sive jurisdictionis And what is this more then the wooden leg or silver teeth which our Divines compare them to But the new Papists since Bellarmine do see a necessity of a further distinguishing the Church as a visible political society from the Church as truly sanctified But that which we and all the ancients do make to be but the Profession distinct from the thing professed the body distinct from the soul the chaff distinct from the wheat the shell distinct from the kernel they make to be as the lower order which is the way to a higher as the Alphabet or lower Rudiments which are the way to Grammar as an apprentiship to a trade I mean as a state of preparation to a state of infallible salvation And because it favoureth their main design they seem to draw near to the same conceit which they were wont falsly to fasten on the Protestants viz. that there are two â—hurches one Political and visible the other regenerate Invisible And Bellarmine confesseth that some of them were of this mind in his time And all this stir is that they may advance their visible Church in the estimation of men thereby the more easily keep the rule in their own hands and exalt themselves above Scripture and draw as many as may be into their society and therefore they drive the poor ignorant Americans by hundreds to be baptized as we drive our beasts to watering or our sheep to be washed and in stead of staying till they make Profession of a saving faith with any seeming seriousness they make Baptism an entrance into the state of the Catechumeni which was wont to be the passage thence into the state of Christians that per fas aut nefas they may engage people to themselves under pretence of engaging them to Christ therefore it is that they so over extoll the visible Political state of the Church as Dr. Prideaux saith Lect. de visibil eccles pag. 128. Experti demum perciperunt externam ecclesiae pompam speciosos titulos apud instabiles plus lucrari quam non lectam vel saltem non intellectam scripturae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hinc ecclesiam ad ravint usque crepant Catholicam quam admissam statim restringunt ad Romae synagogam suco quidem veteratorio sed conspicuo satis ridiculo ut ex conficta ecclesia formeiur doctrina non ex veritate doctrinae reformetur firmetur ecclesia The chief adversaries therefore we have here to deal with are the Papists who over-magnifie the visible face of the Church make the faith of men unjustified to be true faith though not formatacharitate and make Hypocrites and and wicked Professors to be truly and properly fideles and members of the Church whom the Protestants affirm to be but secundum quid materially analogically yea equivocally called members or fideles and therefore they make Baptism to be an appointed means to admit men into this visible Political Church as into the ordinary way and passage to the state of saving grace or justification but not ordinarily into the present possession of it And therefore in conformity to all this they maintain that we must admit persons to Baptism upon the bare Profession of faith that is Assent with consent to be under the Government of the Church and the use of ordinances in order to be a better state For saith Bellarmine it is not Charity but Faith which makes a Christian which our divines admit as true in our sense of the word Faith which includeth the will and is proper to the truly regenerate but they deny it in his sense of it who maketh faith to be the only Assent of the intellect Against this adversary therefore I shall principally bend the force of my Arguments though to my great trouble I must be forced to deal also with a Reverend Brother of our own especially in answering his many fallacious arguments which he hath lately heaped up for that part which I must oppose 4. Before I can positively answer the question in hand I must premise these few necessary Distinctions 1. We must distinguish between a Profession of faith according to the Ministers sense of the words and a Profession according to the speakers sense 2. Between the Children of those that profess not saving faith as theirs and claiming Baptism on the account of some lower Profession and the same Children as owned by some other that do profess saving faith 3. Between the unlawfulness of Baptizing and the Nullity of the Baptism Those distinctions that are necessary for the answering of the objections will come in their places Upon these few I answer the question negatively explained in the following Propositions 1. It is not a Profession of saving Faith in the real intention of the Professor that we affiâ—m necessary but in the Apprehension of the Minister judging of the words according to their common use and acception For we know not the heart of the Professor and therefore know not certainly whether he intend those words as a Profession or not I do not mean whether he be sincere in his Profession and intend the thing Professed for that 's no part of the Profession it self but I mean whether he use the words which he speaks in the sense which they seem to us to import and which they are used in by those that best understand their common signification For example a Papist presenteth a Child to be Baptized Professing to believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost I know that these words according to the Scripture use of them signifie a true saving faâ—th but I am not sure whether the speaker do understand any more by them then a lower faith of meer Assent If I knew he meant no more I would require him to express a saving faith before I would Baptize his Child on his account but if I know it not nor have just reason to question it I must take the words as they are commonly used and seem to be intended by him and so if it appear to me to be a Profession of saving faith though I err and my errour be innocent it is my duty
to Baptize the Child I have known a man of eighty years of age that took God the Son to be the sun in the firmament If before I had understood him this man had professed to believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and presented his child to baptism with this profession and I had no ground before to suspect his error or to examine him about his faith it had been my duty to baptize his child For though in the intended sense of the speaker here was not so much as the Profession of an Historical faith much less of a saving faith yet I know not his heart and the common use of those words as to another signification than he intended and therefore I was Innocent in being deceived 2. I meddle not here with the claim that is laid upon the account of the Ancestors Adopters or undertakers that profess saving faith but only with the claim laid on the account of Parents or any others that profess not saving faith 3. When I assert the unlawfulness I do not intend thereby to assert the Nullity of all such baptism when performed though unlawfully For though it may be Null or vain as to the special uses and benefits yet it followeth not that therefore it is Null as to the true form and being of the Externall Ordinance nor that this is to be re-iterated And with these explications I affirm that Ministers may not Baptize the children of those that Profess not saving faith upon the Profession of any other faith that comes short of it And here you must remember that our question supposeth the determination of the controversie whether the same faith that is necessary in the aged themselves if they were to be baptized be necessary to their childrens baptism on their account For it seems strange to me that any should imagine that a lower belief in the Parent will help his child to a Title than that which is necessary to his own baptism But if any will insist on such a conceit because we will not now make more controversies then that in hand let such all along suppose our dispute to be about the aged themselves whether we might baptize the aged upon the Profession of any faith short of saving And I thus prove the contrary Argum. 1. If we must not baptize any who profess not true Repentance then must we not baptize any that profess not saving faith But the Antecedent is true speaking of the Adult Concerning whom as the more noble subject we shall carry on the Argumentation for brevity still implying the lâ—ke necessity of their professing saving faith for their childrens baptism as for their own therefore c. The Consequence of the Major I prove thus 1. True repentance and saving faith are inseparable therefore if one be of necessity so is the other and the profession of true Repentance cannot be separated from the profession of saving faith therefore if one be necessary so is the other Some learned Divines take repentance and faith to be all one some take repentance to be part of faith but all take it to be as inseparable from it It were easie by describing the requisite Professions of both to shew that they are so interwoven that no man can profess the one wâ—thout the other but I think it is needless because few will deny it By Repentance here I mean that true Evangelical Repentance which is a special grace of God accompanying salvation and not any common preparatory Repentance The Antecedent is easily proved from Scripture and I know not whether any Protestant deny it many Papists indeed distinguish of Repentance and Faith and say that it is only a profession of a preparatory Repentance and sides informis a faith without love that is necessarily to be expected from them before Baptism But I prove the contrary 1. That Repentance 2. And such as is proper to the effectually called is necessary to be professed by all that we may Baptize I will joyn the proof of both together Argum. 1. If John Baptist required the Profession of true Repentance in men before he would baptize them then so must we But John did so therefore the Consequence is clear 1. For either Johns Baptism and Christs were the same as most of our Divines against the Papists do maintain though Zanchy and some few more follow the Judgement of the ancient Doctors in this or as Calvin Institut saith the difference seems to be but this that John baptized them into the Messiah to come and the Apostles into the name of the Messiah already come 2. Or if the difference be greater we may argue à fortiori If Johns Baptism required a Profession of Repentance then much more Christs for certainly Christ required not less then John nor did he take the impenitent into his Kingdom whom John excluded The Antecedent I prove 1. From Mark 1 34. He preached 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And doubtless that Repentance which is in Remissionem peccatorum is true special Repentance One of our Divines and many of the Papists have found out another evasion that is that John did engage them to repent but not requiring a Profession or Repentance as foregoing baptism But 1. this is against the whole current of expositors ancient and modern and 2. against the plain scope of the text The words in Mat. 3.6 are They were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sins This confession was with yea before their baptism and this Confession was the Profession of the Repentance that John required Maldonate on the text having first railed at Calvin and slandered him as turning baptism into preaching as if he had expounded Johns baptizing not of water-baptism but preaching when he only shews that both should go together doth tell the Protestants that they cannot prove by this text that confession went before baptism because it is named after but that he might not seem utterly impudent he confesseth that the thing is true and that it is the sense of the text and that this he confesseth because he must rather be a faithfull expositor then a subtile adversary And if any should say that it 's only confession that 's required which is no certain sign of true Repentance I answer when John saith If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins he took that confession to be a sign of true Repentance And our Expositors and the Ancients before them agree that it was such a confession as was conjunct with a detestation and renouncing of the sin And it is expounded by that of Acts 19.18 as Grotius noteth to have a special detestation of the sin accompaneing it where to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it may sufficy that the baptism to which this Confession was required is the baptisme of Repentance But it is objected that in the 11. vers of Mat. 3. it is said by Iohn I Baptize you
a meer dogmatical faith To which I answer 1. Let them that thus distinguish first clearly explain to us the branches of the distinction and shew us the difference between the two faiths and prove it from Scripture and then prove that it is the last only that must needs be professed in Baptism and then they have done somewhat 2. It will be found no ordinary thing for Scripture to call any common faith a believing on or in Christ. 3. That faith which is said to be in the ungodly though in respect of sides in genere it be really faith yet in respect of sides evangelica in Christum Mediatorem in specie required in the Gospel it is but Equivocally called faith or because that term to Mr. Blake is so abominable let it be Analogically a while till I come to the proof that it is but equivocally such The faith that God requireth and maketh his promises on is only the Faith called Justifying or Saving and the other is as a Mole to a Child or a Monster to a Man which is so far defective ex errore naturae non ex intentione generantis that it doth differ tota specie from a true man and so doth this Faith differ in spâ—cie morali from Evangelical Faith 4. When Faith is mentioned in a preceptive or promising way the nature of the thing and the course of Scripture sheweth that we must understand it of that faith which God owneth by precept or promise and not of that which is but Analogically called faith and ex errore credentis is so monstrous that God never owned such by precept or promise I can find where this Monster is ascribed to many as to Simon Magus and others but let any shew us where it is in hac specie commanded by God or hath any Promise made to it in his word 5. However it will not I hope be denied but that saving faith is the famosius analogatum vel significatum and therefore the Analogum per se positum must be understood of it and not of the Analogical Monstrous faith And therefore when in baptism we must profess â—o Believe in the Father Son and holy-Ghost it must be understood of saving belief till we have a limiting Exposition proved 6. Yea further the nature of the Ordinance commandeth us this exposition For when God hath so frequently promised pardon to believers in or on Christ and then ordained baptism to be the seal of this promise and required that the person to be baptized profess to believe in Christ it plainly followeth that we must understand him to speak of the same faith in the promise and about the seal and not of divers sorts unless he had so declared himself which he no where hath done 2. For the further proof of the Minor I add that the same faith that is mentioned in the ordinary Creed of the Church iâ— meant in the baptismal profession and to be required before baptism this will be confessed 1. because the Creed it self hath been this 1300 years at least profess'd before baptism 2. because the Creed it self is but the 3. fundamental baptismal Articles mentioned Mat. 28.19 enlarged and explained on subsequent occasions as Sandford Parker de descenju have learnedly and largely proved and Grotius in Mat. 28.19 proves out of Tertullian c. that the creed was not then in the form of words as now though the same doctrine was used in other words to the same uses But I assume it is saving faith that is meant in the common Creed by the phrases of believing in God the Father in Jesus Christ in the holy Ghost This our divines do so copiously prove against the Papists that with most Protestants I may take it for granted Saith Mr. Perkins on the Creed Pag. 128. To believe is one thing and to believe in this or that is another thing and is contains in it three Points or Actions of a Believer 1. To know a thing 2. to acknowledge the same 3. To put trust and confidence in it And in this order must these three actions of faith be applied to every Article following which concerns any of the persons in the Trinity And this must be marked as a matter of speceal moment For alwayes by adding them to the words following we do apply the Article to our selves in a very comfortable manner As I believe in the Father and do believe that he is my father and therefore I put my whole trust in him and so of the rest So far Perkins And it 's worthy to be observed which Peter Martyr saith Loc. Commun Ch. 2. in expofit Symboli pag. 421. Age sigillatim videamus quid propriè hoc sibi velit Credo in DeuÌ„ euÌ„ esse agnoscendum uti DeuÌ„ i. e. Deum esse aeternuÌ„ bonuÌ„ ex quo bonuÌ„ aliud quodvis oritur Vnde patet eum qui quippiam tanti aut pluris faciat quà m Deum ipsum dicere verè non posse Credo in Deum Si enim eum ut summum bonuÌ„ agnoscat nihil ei unquam anteposueris Neque etiam is hoc rectè credat qui usquam alibi spem suam collocet quum spes non sit nisi boni cujusdam si ergò Deus sit bonum unde quodvis bonum defluat quicunque aliunde boni quidpâ—am expectârit in eum verè non crediderit Praeterea qui bona quibus fruuntur suae justitiae industriae factis sibi denique ipsis accepta ferunt sensum verúmque ut sic dicam gustum hujus primae nostrae sidei capitis non habent proculdubio ejusmodi homines non Deum propriè sed Dei loco phantasmata sui cerebri inventa colunt Res mihi crede maximi momenti est verum Deum modo suo habere Ursine Paraeus Chatech Q. â—6 p. 140 141. Diffâ—runt Credo Deum Credo in Deum Illud declarat fidem historiae hoc fiduciam Nam credo Deum est credo quòd sit Deus quòd sit talis qualeÌ„ se in verbo patefecit viz c. Credo in deuÌ„ est credo quòd mihi sit Deus hoc est quod quicquid est habet sit habeat ad meam salutem Et p. 360. Credere in DeuÌ„ non est tantuÌ„ Deum agnoscere sed etiam in Deo fiduciam habere Alinqui etiam Diabolus habet Notitiam Dei promissionum ejus sed non habet fiduciam Ideò Notitia ejus non est fides Justificans sed Historica And p. 191. Quid est Credo in Jesum silium Dei unigenitum Resp. Credo JesuÌ„ esse silium Dei sed hoc non est satìs nam etiam Diâ—boli hoc credunt Itaque addenduÌ„ 2. Credo mihi hoc est in meam saluteÌ„ eum esse filiuÌ„ Dei p. 213 Credere in ChristuÌ„ DominuÌ„ nostruÌ„ hoc est ita crede ChristuÌ„ DominuÌ„ nostrum ut in eo fiduciam collocemus Cum igitur dicimus nos
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
Scripture either of Precept or example where any person in baptism or the Lords Supper doth engage or is required to engage to begin to believe with a saving faith or to believe with a faith which at the present he hath not Shew but one word of Scripture to prove this if you can if you cannot I may conclude that therefore we must not require that which we have no Scripture ground to require 2. This Engagement to believe savingly is either for a remote distant time or for the next instant â—ut no unbeliever as to that faith is called to promise in Baptism such a saving faith either at a distant time or the next instant therefore not at all 1. Not at a distant time For first that were to resolve to serve the Devil and be an unbeliever till that time 2. And no man is sure to live any longer time 2. Not at the next instant For first that instant cometh as soon as the word of Promise is out of his mouth even before Baptism and therefore by that Rule he must believe savingly before 2. We may as well stay one minute or instant to see whether he will perform his Promise as to baptize him upon that bare Promise of believing the next minute 3. It is a ridiculous unreasonable conceit that any man should say I believe not savingly yet but within a minute of an hour I will and that this should be required in baptism and the Lords Supper 3. God makes it not the condition or qualification of them that are to be admitted to Baptism or the Lords Supper that they should Promise to do that which they have no Moral Power to do I mean such as the seed or habit of Grace containeth as to the act But the unregenerate have no Moral Power to believe with a saving faith Ergo c. The Major is proved thus 1. To promise to believe savingly is to Profess that they are truly willing to believe savingly but no wicked men are truly willing so to believe therefore they are not called to promise it for that were to be called to profess an untruth and so to lye Unless as they are called to be really willing and promise both and that is but to be sincerely faithful and to promise to continue so 2. It is not found any where in Scripture that I know of that God doth call any wicked man to promise to be a godly man or true believer before he is so but only commandeth him to be so And if God never call such men to such a promise at all then is it not the condition or qualification of persons to be admitted to the Sacraments We still speak of the aged The Minor is proved from many Scriptures and is the common Doctrine of all Antipelagians at least We are dead in trespasses and sins and must we baptize and give the Lords Supper to such dead men upon a Promise that they will be alive Out of Christ we can do nothing Without faith it is impossible to please God It is God that giveth to will and to do of his good pleasure And no wicked man can tell whether God will give him the grace of saving faith therefore he cannot promise to have it But I shall speak more to this under the last Argument Argum. 16. If there can be no example given in Scripture of any one that was baptized without the Profession of a saving faith nor any Precept for so doing then must not we baptize any without it But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent What is pretended this way we shall examine anon among the Objections In the mean time let us review the Scripture examples of Baptism which might afford us so many several Arguments but that I shall put them together for brevity 1. I have already shewed that John required the Profession of true Repentance and that his Baptism was for Remission of sin 2. When Christ layeth down in the Apostolical Commission the Nature and Order of his Apostles work it is first to make Disciples and then to Baptize them into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost And as it is a making Dâ—sciples which is first expressed in Matthew so Mark expoundeth who these Disciples are as to the aged by puâ—ting Believing before Baptism and that we may know that it is Justifying faith that he meaneth he annexeth first Baptism and then the Promise of salvation Matth. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved This is not like some occasional Historical mention of Baptism but it s the very Commission of Christ to his Apostles for Preaching and Baptism and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and Order Their first task is by teaching to make Disciples which are by Mark called Believers The second work is to Baptize them whereto is annexed the Promise of their Salvation The third work is to teach them all other things which are afterward to be learnt in the School of Christ. To contemn this Order is to renounce all Rules of Order For where can we expect to find it if not here I profess my conscience is fully satisfied from this Text that it is one sort of faith even saving that must go before Baptism and the Profession whereof the Minister must expect Of which see what is before cited out of Calvin and Piscator That it was saving faith that was required of the Jews and professed by them Acts 2.38 41 42. is shewed already and is plain in the Text. Acts 8. The Samaritans believed and had great joy and were baptized into the name of Jesus Christ ver 8 12. Whereby it appeareth that it was both the understanding and will that were changed and that it was not a meer Dogmatical faith and that they had the Profession of a saving faith even Simon himself we shall shew anon when we answer their objections Acts 8.37 The condition on which the Eunuch must be baptized was if he believe with all his heart which he Professed to do and that was the Evidence that Philip did expect Paul was baptized after true conversion Act. 9.18 The Holy Ghost fell on the Gentiles Acts 10.44 before they were baptized and they magnified God And this Holy Ghost was the like gift as was given to the Apostles who believed on the Lord Iesus and it was accompanied with Repentance unto life Act. 11.17 18. Acts 16.14.15 Lydia's heart was opened before she was baptized and she was one that the Apostles judged faithful to the Lord and offered to them the evidence of her faith Acts 16.30 31 33 34. The example of the Jaylor is very full to the resolution of the question in hand He first asketh what he should do to be saved The Apostle answereth him believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and thy house so that it was a saving faith that here is mentioned He rejoyced and believed with all
to be of those that are sincerely Christians or 2. That they profess themselves willing to be under Church Rulers and Ordinances as Bellarmine speaks or 3. That they will take part with Christians in pleading defending c. If the first be your meaning then they profess themselves true Christians and so to have saving faith For there is but two sorts of Christians Those that are really so having saving faith and those that are Analogically Christians professing saving faith when they have it not 2. If you mean the second with the Papists then consider that it is not into the Pope nor Church Rulers nor Ordinances that we are baptized but into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost And suppose that a man truly understand on what terms Christ is offered in the Gospel that man may say I am content to be in the Church under teaching and to receive the Sacraments and to accompany Christians and fight for them but yet I will not yet be a Christian my self For I am not willing that Christ should sanctifie me and save me from my sins And who that dependeth on the mouth of Christ would baptize this man It is no more than belongeth to a Seeker or a Catechumne to be willing to hear And God never made it a Title to Sacraments meerly to bee willing to receive them Else all may receive them that will At least I must profess that I can hardly believe but that all that will receive them must profess that they receive them to the ends which they are appointed to And that no man can do that doth not eodem actu profess himself a true believer If the third be your sense then no doubt but many Christians in the Indies have had Moors and Indian servaâ—ts who were willing to associate with Christians and loved them and would live and die with them that yet were no Christians themselves But the fullest declaration of Mr. Blake's mind I find pag. 147. upon my earnest provocation of him to describe that faith which entitleth to Baptism The words are these Seeing Mr. Baxter calls upon me to declare my self further in this thing I do believe and profess to hold that he that upon hearing the Gospel preacht and the truth of it published and opened shall professedly abjure all other opposite wayes whatsoever and choose the Christian way for salvation promising to follow the Rules of it is to be baptized and his seed c. To which I reply If this be not a profession of saving faith I despair of ever being saved 1. No man but a sanctified man can truly desire salvation it self as it is indeed consisting in the blessed fruition of God in Intuition Love Praise and there is no other salvation No man but the Regenerate can truly renounce all opposite wayes One opposite way is the way of the flesh and carnal reason and the way of worldliness c. No man can live out of action nor out of moral action which tendeth to an end and that end is his own felicity He therefore that renounceth all other ways must turn to Christ the only way or else cut his own throat or some way murther himself that he may cease action or else must attain to a perfect desperation 3. No man but the Regenerate doth heartily choose the Christian way for salvation For what is that but to choose Christ for salvation and what is that but supposing assent the true description of saving faith 4. No man but the Regenerate can sincerely follow or resolve and promise to follow the Rules of that way For what is that but to follow the rules of Christ and Scripture And what is that but sincerely to obey So that he that professeth these four Points or any one of them doth profess that which is proper to the regenerate So that if Mr. Blake do not here give up his Cause and say as I do understand English that can for me If Mr. Blake dare adjudge all those to damnation that go not further than this faith which he here describeth to be professed as he must if he suppose this to be the profession of a faith short of saving he shall never have my vote in approbation of his censure If those who perform that which is here said to be professed be not saved I know not who will Therefore I doubt not but it is the profession of a saving faith But what need we make any further enquiry or dispute against a man that professedly yields the cause Hear his foregoing words pag. 147. His two first Arguments drawn from authority the first of the Assembly of Divines and others of a number of Fathers are brought to prove that the profession of a justâ—fying faith is required to Baptism And what is that to me who never denied it but in plain words have often affirmed it It sufficiently implyed where I require a Dogmatical faith to Baptism A Dogmatical faith assents to that of Apollo's Jesus is the Christ and when I say that this entitles I cannot mean concealed or denyed but openly professed Reader canst thou tell what to make of this is not here a plain concession that a profession of justifying faith is requisite to Baptism and doth he not averr that he never denied it Perhaps we have disputed all this while without an adversary as to Mr. Blake let it be so and let us see the truth prevail and I shall not be industrious to prove to Mr. Blake that he hath said the contrary But yet me thinks its a marvellous thing that a man should so frequently express his mind against the necessity of the presence profession of a justifying faith as to Baptism and for the sufficiency of a faith short of justifying and the profession thereof as a title to that Ordinance and now say that he never denyed the Profession of a justifying faith to Baptism but in plain words hath oft affirmed it Read the words that I before cited out of him read both his books and see how much of the scope of them is this way And let the Reader when he hath done tell us if he can what Mr. Blake talk't for By the words an English man would think that he had at large argued for the sufficiency of a faith short of justifying in re professione as to entitle to Baptism But here he seems most expresly to deny it I say he seems for I must profess that I dare not presume that I understand him here neither For the rest of his book which I thought I understood seemed as plain as this I began once of think that a fraud lay under these words and that it is here necessity of Precept only which he means when he saith that a Profession of saving faith is necessary to Baptism and not a necessity to means or that it is sine qua non But though I know no other way to reconcile him here to his books yet
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
if as some suppose the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alo to nourish for so men may do by children that are any way their own But it is only the immediate Parents that we here mean though Festus saith that Juris prudentes avos proavos avias proavias parentum nomine appellari dicunt And though the word Parens be sometime taken pro Consanguineo And Hierom saith advers Ruffin lib. 2. That militari vulgarÃque consuetudine cognati assines nominantur Parentes But of this more anon The term Ungodly is it that needeth the most wary and exact Explication as on which the greatest stress of the Controversie doth depend It is not one only sense in which the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pius Impius Godly and Ungodly are used Some think that Pius comes from an obsolete Greek word now difused 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do refer and so that the primary signification is of one that worships God wiâ—h the Fat of Sacrifice as Abel did with the best of his service and not the refuse or lean Meliùs ad rem fuerit saith Mertinius Pius derivare à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod Cretensibus est Deus ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quia pius est qui Deo addictus est devotus eumque sequitur ut Angli Pium Godly tanquam Divinum Ità Objectum Pii indicaretur Si ad actum respiciamus idonra originatio erit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quippe quae est vox religiosae operationis Vide plura ibid. Our English word Godly is the most clear for Etymology and sense And for the right understanding of it we must consider 1. What God is and in what Relationn to Man he stands 2. What is required from Man towards God 1. As God is in himself most perfectly Good from whence some think in English he is called God so is he to Man 1. The Principal efficient Cause of all his Good 2. And the chief Objective matter and ultimate end so that in him alone can we be happy He is our α and ω our very All. he stands Related to Man as his Creator Governour Redeemer and Preserver 2. From whence Man is obliged to acknowledge God in these Relations whether Naturally or Supernaturally made known and to consent to them and to love and honour him as God though it be not perfectly which is now above his strength yet must it be sincerely even comparatively and superlatively above any Creature whatsoever He that doth thus is a Godly man that is a man that doth sincerely believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and is devoted to God Besides this principal sense there are some others common both in the defect and in the excess 1. Among Heathens he is called Pious 1. who is a devout honourer of their Gods though Idols 2. or who is merciful to people in misery 3. or who is an Honourer of Parents and Superiors or who is conscientious according to their insufficient light 2. Among Christians 1. Some call any man Godly that is zealous in Religious matters though so unsound in the fundamentals that he worshippeth he knows not what or so ignorant about Gods very nature and his relations to him that it is not God indeed as God that he worshippeth and though he be actually incapable of true Love and Devotedness to God for want of right conceivings of him even in those respects that are essential to the Object of the Christian faith 2. Some call a man Godly that makes a sound Confession and knows the Christian Doctrine and saith he believeth it though he notoriously manifest that his Will doth not consent that the God whom he confesseth shall be his God his Ruler and Felicity nor the Christ whom he confesseth shall be his Saviour on his own terms nor the Holy Ghost his Guide and Sanctifier 3. On the other side Many will call no Man Godly that is not noted for some eminent difference in Parts and Zeal from others that live about him If they see him neglect some Duties that he is bound to as not to come to some private Meetings that are used regularly and to Edification or not to Read or Hear so frequently or diligently as he should or not to Pray in his family which in some Cases its possible a Godly man may neglect or if he commit some sins which yet its possible a Godly man may commit they account him ungodly though possibly it may be otherwise in the main so that no man is by them esteemed Godly unless he go beyond the weakest sort of true Christians As for them that call none Godly but their own parties or sect-fellows I will pass them as not worthy our further mention Among all these senses it is the first in which we here take the word Godly so that it is only Christian Godliness that we mean which is a sincere believing in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost even with true intellectual Assent and hearty Consent from which heart-Godliness there follows that sincere Obedience to the will of God to first and second Table which is the proper fruit of it and Repentance after disobedience known It is therefore such a Godliness as is proper to them that have the promise of Justification and Salvation that we mean comprehending Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. Of the contrary to this only is the Question 4. By Notoriously ungodly we mean such as do evidently manifest their ungodly hearts 1. either by verbal professing it 2. or by their rebellious ungodly lives that they leave to those that converse with them no just reasonable ground to judge them in probability to be Godly but are certainly known by those that live about them yea by the Church if they are members of any particular Church who have an ordinary competent ability to discern to be ungodly persons that is not to believe in God as aforesaid but to be indeed contemners of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as all are that are not Godly though not all in a like degree They that are notoriously known to be thus ungodly or unholy or unbelievers are those here intended 5. By Baptized Parents we mean only such as have had the external sign joyned to a Profession of the Christian faith and Dedication to God and so have covenanted ore tenus with God by themselves or parents and not those that have been sincerely Dedicated to him and so have God re-engaged unto them For it is a contradiction for to call such at the time of such Devotedness notoriously ungodly and to say that they fall from it is contrary to the judgement of those whom we now deal with and therefore not to be expected Some do so define Baptism as to make it essentially to be Gods actual sealing and exhibiting
question I plead not for any Error of the Antients in keeping men from Baptism that were fit for it but only mention such as were but in preparation to such fitness Argum. 23. That Doctrine is at least much to be suspected which by contradicting the very Natural Principles of Religion doth tend strongly to disgrace Jesus Christ and tempt the world to Infidelity But such is the Doctrine which we oppose Ergo. For the proof of the Minor Note 1. That it is a natural certain Verity that the Righteous Lord loveth Righteousness and that he is a hater of sin in whomsoever and delighteth in that Holiness which is his very Image and that God is no Accepter of persons but in every Nation he that feareth him and worketh Righteousness is accepted of him 2. Note That the Doctrine which we oppose holdeth that Jesus Christ doth set so much by the bare believing that He is the Son of God yea the verbal profession of it and so little by Holiness that if men will but make that profession let them live how they will let them be Adulterers Murderers of Fathers or Mothers perjured to God and Man c. yet they lose not their Right to this Priviledge that even the children of their bodies shall be of the family of Christ upon their Interest or Account yea though themselves will not so much as soberly promise to amend yea though they be Persecutors of any that would reform them or any other way notoriously ungodly Doth not this strongly tempt men to imagine that Jesus Christ came not to cure souls and bring men back to God and save them from sin but to seek himself and his own honor and that he preferred the acknowledgement of his dignity before the Interest of God and mens souls Doth it not tempt men to think that Christianity is no better than the other Religions of the world when it owneth such Monsters as the Children of the Church When we justly condemn a Seneca Cicero Fabritâ—us Socrates c. as miserable for not believing in Christ whom they never heard of most of them and priviledge the children of one worse than Nero Surdanapalus Machiavel and that for the sake of such a Parent and as a member of him to be in Covenant with Christ and of the beloved Society and Houshold of Faith In my opinion this will he a horrid stumbling block to those without and give them such cause to blaspheme our holy profession as our Lord never gave them who came purposely into the world to destroy the works of the Devil and to bring back revolted man to the Holy Image and obedience of his Maker and who professed himself but the Way to the Father and therefore established and valued faith in himself but in order to the acknowledgement and love of God and so of Godliness and Holiness as its end and a greater good yea that hath purchased us by his blood to a glory which doth consist in the fruition of God in the perfection of Holiness and hath sent forth his spirit into the souls of men to be in office their Sanctifier and to make such wondrous changes on mens hearts as shameth all the rest of the Religions of the world yea who hath made his Kingdom to consist in Righteousness and Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost and the heavenly wisdom to be first Pure then Peaceable Gentle easie to be entreated full of mercy and good fruits and who hath sanctified to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works and makes so strict and holy a Law to guide them as he hath done In my opinion so loose a doctrine should not be pinned on the sleeve of so Holy a Saviour Argum. 24. That doctrine and practice is not by good Christians to be received which besides the forementioned evidence of Scripture contradicteth the doctrine and practice of all the Primitive Church But such is this Ergo. I admire that grave men among us and Godly who will stretch their wits to the uttermost to defend that which is the more common opinion of Divines of best repute among whom they live before they will differ from them can yet make so small a matter of differing from the Fathers and universal consent of the Primitive Churches as far as we have any means to disprove it That it was their Judgement and practice to refuse to baptize any Notorious ungodly person while such appears past all doubt 1. By their requiring a profession of Repentance 2. And a profession of Believing in the Father Son and Holy Ghost and renouncing the world the flesh and the Devil and promising a new life 3. By their Judging the Baptized to be in a state of salvation which was on supposition of their true sanctification 4. By their too much care in delaying the Catechumeni in later times lest they should be unmeet Let me recite the testimonies of one or two of our own and one of those Antients each of the highest Authority in the present case 1. Mr. Gilespie Aarons Rod. l. 3. ch 15 pag. 544. saith It were a Profanation of the Sacrament of Baptism to Baptize a Catechumene a Jew or a Pagan professing a Resolution to turn Christian he being manifestly under the power of abominable Reigning sins and being still a prophane and wicked liver although he were able to give a sound and orthodox Confession of Faith From whence he argueth that therefore the same men are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper 2. Spanhemius Epist. ad D. Buch. pa. 14. gives three reasons to prove that Athrists Epicures Profane men qui vitam inter flagitia traducunt aperte ostendunt se non habere fidem quâ creditur nec spiritum sanctificationis secundum ullum ejus gradum quamdiu in ista impietate perstant nec poenitentiam tum profitentur tum spondent may not lawfully be baptized And our Divines commonly say In Baptism we engage our selves to a holy Life those therefore which live not holily are covenant-Breakers and herefore have not Right to the benefits of the covenant See Piscat in Mat. 3. Obser. ex v. 6 8.10 in Mat. 28. v. 19. Davenane is Col. 2.12 Peter Martyr in Rom. 6.3 Zanch. in Ephes. 5. loc de Bapt. cap. 3 Thes. 37. many more I omit 3. The Doctrine of the Antients I have given a touch of elsewhere as to these points All that I shall now say is to desire the learned Reader that hath not done it to peruse all over that book of Augustine de fide operibus which is wholly written on this subject There were then some Christians whose opinion was that if a Heathen lived in whoredom when he turned Christian he was not to be refused Baptism till he would promise Reformation and would put away his whore but because that the Apostles baptized upon believing and required obedience afterward and works are to be the consequent fruit of Faith therefore the Pastor
know that afterward when the Princes and Rulers were evil or negligent then the Church must needs be defiled and the Laws of God unexecuted And perhaps I may mis-interpret some texts of Scripture to a more gentle sense then others do or then is meet Of this let every man judge as he please it s no time now to call all such texts to account If any be offended at my charitable thoughts of the body of the Jews Gods only peculiar people on earth let them blot out these fore going considerations or take them as non dicta for I lay not the stress of my Cause upon them But the Principal thing which I would have observed is this That by Gods Political Law of this Common-wealth all Notorious ungodly persons were to be put to death yea and many far short of that degree I know it is a controversie among Divines what is meant by all those places that speak of Cutting off from his people Mr. Gilespie with others think it is meant of Excommunication Others think it is meant of the Magistrates punishing them with death or Gods doing it extraordinarily if the Magistrate should be negligent The main reason brought against this Exposition is that it seems too bloody But it must be considered how terrible the Law was and how God designed in it the manifestation of his Jealousie Holiness and hatred of sin If every man that did ought presumptuously might be cut off from the Church why not from the Living The Apostle in Acts 3.23 reciting that of Moses saith He that will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from the People However let that phrase mean what it will we have proof enough beside that not only all notorious Ungodly ones but also many Godly ones that fell into gross sin were all to be put to death From whence I argue thus If it was the Law of God that all such persons should be presently put to death then was it not the will of God that their Infants should have Right to Circumcision for their sakes no nor on any other account But the Antecedent is true therefore the Consequent The Reason of the Consequence is this Either thâ—se mens children were born before the parents turned ungodly or after If before then were they circumcised the eighth day as the children of the Godly If after then it was against Gods Law that they should be born much less circumcised For if Gods Law had been fulfilled the parents had been put to death we speak of both parents and then how could they have had a child All the doubt then lying in the Antecedent I shall from Scripture put it is past doubt Let us look over all the Commandments and see whether Death were not to be inflicted for the gross breach of them except the last which is secret in the heart For the first Commandment see Deut. 13. If a Prophet wrought wonders to entice to worship strange Gods or if the nearest kinsman secretly enticed them to it to thrust them out of the way which the Lord commanded them to walk in ver 5. he must be put to death If a City be withdrawn by such they are all to be put to death Children Cattle and Goods were to be destroyed and consumed Deut. 20.18 They were not to save alive any person no not Infants of the Cities that God delivered them to dwell in Lest they teach them to do according to their abominations Exod. 22.20 He that sacrificeth to any God save the Lord only shall utterly be destroyed The breach of the second Commandment is punished with Death Exod. 32.26.27 28. The Priests of Baal are slain 1 Kin. 18.40 2 Kin. 10.21.22 to 29. 23.5 19 20. Yea in one word he that would not be Godly positively was put to death 2 Chron. 15.12 13. It is spoken in their commendations that they entered into a Covenant to seek the Lord God of their Fathers with all their heart and with all their soul that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death whether small or great whether man or woman Lev. 24.15 16. Whosoever blasphemeth the name of the Lord was to be put to death So ver 23. Every one that did any work on the sabbath or defiled it was to be put to death Exod. 31.14 15. 35.2 He that smitteth or curseth his Father or Mother must be put to death Exod 21.15 Murderers Man-stealers Incestuous Sodomites Adulteres Wizards were to be put to death Exod. 21. Lev. 20. yea and those that turn after Wizards Any Prophet that shall presume to speak a word in Gods name which he hath not commanded him to speak or that speaketh in the name of other Gods must die Deut. 13.20 In some cases Fornicators must die Deut. 22. Every man that forsook God and broke his Covenant was to be stoned to death Deut. 17.2 3 4 5 6. Many the like passages might be cited but I will conclude with two or three of chief note for this purpose Deut. 21.18 19 20 21. If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son which will not obey the voyce of his father or the voyce of his mother and that when they have chastened him will not hearken unto them then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him and bring him out unto the Elders of his City and to the Gate of his place and they shall say unto the Elders of his City This our son is stubborn and rebellious he will not obey our voyce he is a Glutton and a Drunkard And all the men of his City shall stone him with stones that he die So shall you put away evil from among you and all Israel shall hear and fear Here I suppose it will be granted that it is the Parents duty to restrain their children from all ungodliness and that Gluttony and Drunkenness are but instanced in as part in stead of all the rest And if all children must be put to death that will not be ruled for good by their Parents then when they are dead they will beget no children who may claim Right to Circumcision for their sakes But if any say that this extendeth not to those that are from under their Parents tutorage or Government I answer First Sure the same sin deserveth the same punishment afterward from the Magistrate if they are obstinate against his pious precepts Secondly but to put the case out of doubt see Deut. 17.12 And the man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God or unto the Judge even that man shall die and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel and all the people shall hear and fear and do no more pâ—esumptuously To these Deut. 29.19 20. From all which it is evident that as Impenitency or Obstinacy in sin is the great cause of Excommunication now so was it then to be punished with Death
ought will be excluded or suspended And the fruit of Discipline its like will be judged scarce worth the trouble so few causes will be brought as will bring it to be strange But Discipline must not be so eluded Ergo. Argum. 5. Christ telleth us that by their Fruits we should know them therefore by fruits of Godliness or ungodliness we must judge of men as Godly or Ungodly as to these acts of administration and communion We must judge that to be a Vine which hath Grapes and that to be no Thistle that hath Figgs We judge not usually of the certainty of mens Impenitency or Infidelity but of the strong probability It s possible a mans own words may be false Argum. 6. We must admit of a weak presumption or probability for admitting men to Priviledges therefore we may admit of strong presumption for denying them If we must take a probability in one then in the other only allowing the difference as aforesaid that we must have a stronger presumption for denying than for granting is necessary For we must be content with less evidence for a man than against a man Quest. 1. But what is that we may take for a sufficient reason of a mans claim And. 2 Quest What must we take for a violent presumption of the unsoundness of his claim To the first I say in brief 1. If a Heathen that yesterday was guilty of the grossest sin do come to me this day and with seeming sorrow confess his fault and with seeming seriousness profess to believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost that is to believe all the essential Articles of Christian Religion and profess his consent to take God for his only God and portion Christ for his only Redeemer and the Holy Ghost for his Sanctifier renouncing the World Flesh and Devil I shall take this Verbal profession for a sufficient Reason of his claim unless any just Bar of exception be put in against him to invalidate it 2. The same Title I shall take for valid for the Baptism of his Infants 3. If a man have made the same profession and after long continuance in the Church doth offer his Child to Christ in Baptism and offer to renew that profession and enter his child into the same Covenant I shall suppose his claim just till some sufficient reason be brought to prove it unjust 1. I find that the Apostles took such a profession as a sufficient proof of the justice of the claim at the Parents own baptism Not as being it self the Condition called by many the Title but as being such an evidence of the Title to us as we are bound to accept 2. In equity and reason if the condition of a mans interest or his Title as they call it do lie in the heart out of mans reach we must take his own profession as evidence sufficient unless he give himself the lye and give us other reason to discredit him If a man say he is a Believer and profess himself to be a godly man that is a Lover and Honorer of God I will take him for a Believer and a godly man till I can disprove his profession I am not not bound to believe an evident Lye but I am bound to believe a man till the falshood of his speeches be evident Charity believeth all such things and thinketh not evil without sufficient evidence I need not go to a mans life for his evidence of his first Title And for his Right to after-communion and priviledges though other mens Testimony of a Godly conversation be a good confirmation yet I am not alwaies bound to seek or require that nor yet to have a personal knowledge of it But if any from his life will bring a cross evidence to disprove his own verbal profession of faith and obedience I will take it into consideration And I could wish that all Christians would proceed according to this Rule and call no man ungodly when they cannot prove hâ—m to be such at least so far as to a strong presumption But that they would take all for Godly that say they are Godly till they can disprove them I know they will say then you will miscall men and call those Godly that are not and then you must not difference the Precious from the Vile this is large charity indeed To which I answer 1. We call them but what they seem and 2. what God warranteth us to call them the Apostles telling such themselves that they were all the Sons of God by faith heirs saints justified c. Gal. 3. 1 Cor. 1.1 6.2 We difference as far as we have evidence to lead us and further we must not As I said before we must imitate God in this where the mixture is such that the Tares cannot be pulled up without pulling up the Corn both must grow together till the Harvest we must not think to difference so exactly and search and sift so neer to the bran as God will then do If the case be so uncertain and inevident that we may on such Grounds condemn the Righteous with the wicked we must let Righteous and wicked go together as if all were Righteous and call the whole field a Corn field for all the Tares Obj. Then must we judge falsly for we must judge men to be what they are not Answ. 1. If it were so it is no sin in you but in them that profess falsly When ever you judge the most glorious hypocrite to be Godly you judge falsly but not sinfully for every mistake is not our sin 2. But I say you are not to judg falsly neither For you are not to judge that it is certain that these are Godly men but only that its probable And note well that there is a difference to be made within the Church between the better and worser Members as well as between the Church and those without And observe that there are divers degrees of this probability of mens sincerity some do so fully second their profession by a Godly life that we have a very strong confidence of their sincerity though not a certainty Some do give us some good hopes but not so strong a perswasion Some are so dull and negligent and faultie in their lives that we have much fear of their perdition though we are bound because of their profession to keep up some hopes of them as being not without some probability of their honesty I doubt the common sort of Christians are but such as these And therefore we may even in the Church preach for mens Conversion and Regeneration because though we know not certainly who they be that are unregenerate yet we know that many such there are that profess Religion and have great cause of fear and jealousie concerning many in particular So that we must place a great difference between those whom we must permit in the same Church-communion and must administer the same Sacraments to we rejoyce in our hopes of some 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