man which is renewed in knowledge according to the Image of him that created him So that this is no common work if any be proper to the saved And putting on the Lord Iesus Christ is put for the state of Sanctity in opposition to a fleshly Life Rom. 13.13 14. saith Calvin on this Text Induere Christum hic significat virtute Spiritus ejus undique nos muniri qua idonei ad omnes Sanctitatis partes reddamur sic enim instauratur in nobis imago Dei quae unicum est animae ornamentum Respicit enim Paulus ad vocationis nostrae sinem quia Deus nos adoptans in corpus unigeniti silii sui inserit quidem hac lege ut nos abdicantes priore vita siamus in ipso novi homines Quare etiam alibi fideles dicit Christum inâ—uere in baptismum Gal. 3.27 and upon Galat. 3.27 he saith Quum dicit Christum induisse intelligit Christo sic esse insitos ut coram Deo nomen ac personam Christi gerant ac in ipso magis quà m in seipsis censeantur And he comes to the objection How all that are baptized can be said to put on Christ when Baptism is not effectual with all And he answereth in sum That to Hypocrites it is uneffectual qui nudis signis superbiunt But then he saith that the Apostle speaking of these non respicit Dei institutionem sed impiorum corruptelam But doubtless it is Gods institution that we must look to for direction in our administration Quum autem fideles alloquitur qui rite utuntur illa tunc conjungit cum sua veritate quam figurant Quare neque enim fallacem Pompam ostentat in Sacramentis sed quae externa Ceremonia figurat exhibit simul reipsa Hinc sit ut veritas secundum Dei institutum conjuncta sit cum signis To the same purpose say other Protestants The next Title mentioned in the Argument was Sons of God All that are Baptized are the visible or esteemed Sons of God by faith in Christ therefore they all profess that justifying faith to which the real or special Son-ship is promised The Antecedent is experssed in Gal. 3.16 17. For ye are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus which he proveth in the next words For as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. What Sons of God are in Scripture sense may be seen Joh. 1.12 Rom 8.14 19. Phil. 2.15 1 Joh. 3.1 2. Gal. 4 1 2 5 7. and Rom. 8.17 If sons then heirs heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ was a good consequence in Pauls judgement In this saith John the children of God are manifest from the children of the devil whosoever doth not righteousness is not of God neither he that loveth not his brother 1 John 3.10 therefore Mr Blake's Saints are not the children of God but of the Devil See also John 11.52 Rom. 8 16.21 But Mr. Blake objecteth Rom 9.4 To them pertained the Adoption and Gomarus his Comment Answ. 1. Gomarus saith not that any were in either sense sons of God without a Profession of saving Faith 2. It was not after their unchurching for unbelief that the Adoption is said to pertain to them but before and then let Mr. Blake prove if he can that any Israelites were adopted without profession of that Faith which was then saving I doubt not to prove the contrary anon And 3. If he could prove that such there were among the Israelites yet he will never prove that they are called Sons though the Nation were because the denomination was principally from the true Sons and next from the professed ones but never from or to them that professed only a common faith None are visibly Sons that be not visibly true Believers The next Title mentioned in the Argument is Abraham's Seed All that are baptized are called Abrahams Seed Gal. 3.17 18 19. therefore they all profess a justifying Faith The Consequence is proved in that none are Abraham's Seed in Scripture Gospel sense but those cordially that are true Believers and those appearingly that profess true Faith This is proved Rom. 9.4 6 7 8. Rom. 4.11 that he might be the Father of all them that believe that Righteousness might be imputed to them also This therefore is a justifying faith and the priviledge of the Justified that is here mentioned It s added ver 12 13. And the Father of Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision but also walk in the steps of the faith of our Father Abraham yet uncircmucised for the promise that he should be heir of the world was not to Abraham or his seed by the law but by the righteousness of faith Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promâ—se might be sure to all the seed even to that also which is of the faith of Abraham the Father of us all So Gal. 3.6.7 8 9. Even as Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness Know ye therefore that they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham and the Scripture fore-seeing that God would justifie thâ— heathen by faith preached before the Gospel to Abraham in thee shall all Nâ—tions be blessed So then they which be of Faith are blessed with faithful Abraham So ver 14.16 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ that we might receive the Promise of the Spirit through faith Now to Abraham and his seed were the Promises made he saith not and to seeds as of many but as of one And to thy seed which is Christ and so to those that are in him It is hence most undeniable That all Abrahams true Seed are Justified and have a Justifying faith and all his Professing seed do Profess this faith The next Title mentioned in the Argument is Heirs according to the Promise All the Baptized were Heirs according to the Promise None that Profess not a Justifying faith are Heirs according to the Promise either really or appearingly therefore none that Profess not a Justifying faith or their children should be baptized The Major is expressed in Gal. 3.17 18 19. The Minor of which is all the doubt is proved from Rom. 8 17. where there is an express concatenation of children heirs of God co-heirs with Christ that suffering with him shall be glorified with him Gal. 4.1 6 7. The heir is Lord of all and a Son therefore hath the spirit of the Son by which they cry Abba Father So Tit. 3.5 6 7. According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of Regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost which he shed on us c. that being justified by his Grace we should he made heirs according to the hope of eternal Life The heirs then are Regenerate Justified and have the hope of eternal Life So Eph. 3.6 The Gentiles being made fellow-heirs and of the same body are partakers of
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
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
sed justificatis h. e. non infidelibus sed conversis Non igitur nisi conversione fide sumi debent secus sigilla justitiae esse cessant Quid enim non hathentibus fidem justitiam obsignarem Yet following Calvin he next sheweth that sometime Righteousness doth follow after and not precede instancing in Isaac which none denieth For Infants are baptized on the account of their Parents faith and not their own and the adult oft profess the faith which they have not Note also here besides Paraeus his express decision of the main controversie how he takes the converted justified and believers for the same and the unconverted unjustified and Infidels for the same Ragerus a little quarrels with Paraeus and as many Lutherans do would make Abrahams example no standing Rule that the Sacrament begets not the first Grace sed non sequitur in hoc subjecto Circumcisio non habuit virtutem operativam gratiae primitus conferendae ergò in nullo habuit imò vero aliis gratiae divinae adhuc destitutis medium esse potuit gratiae primitus conferendae so others of that way But as we distinguish between what God may do by Baptism and what he hath Instituted it to do so the very judgement of these Lutherans and many Papists who will have Sacraments to confer Grace where it is not is against the opinion that we now resist For it is not any lower effect only but saving Justification or Remission which these make to be the present effect of it Dr. Willet in loc saith Circumcision then did not confer upon him that Grace which he had not but did confirm and stablish him in the grace and faith received the Sacraments then non Instituta sunt justificandis sed justificatis are not Instituted for those which are to be justified but for them which are already justifyed Parae Peter Martyr is larger and makes these words of Paul to be the definition of a Sacrament to be a Seal of the Righteousness of faith Much out of them might be cited for the cause in hand but that I must avoid prolixity So much shall serve for that Argument Argum. 7. We must Baptize none but those that are first professed Disciples of Christ and their children who are also Disciples but none are professed Disciples of Christ that profess not saving faith in Christ therefore we may not Baptize any that profess not saving faith in Christ. The Major is proved from Matth 38.19 Go Disciple me all Nations batizing them As for those that say they are Discipled by baptizing and not before baptizing 1. They speak not the sense of that Text. 2. Nor that which is true or rational if they mean it absolutely as so spoken else why should one be baptized more then another 3. But if they mean that by heart-covenant or Gods Accepâ—ance and promise they are Disciples before but not so compleatly till the covenant be sealed and solemnized as a souldier is not so signally a souldier till he be listed nor a King till he be crowned so fully a King or a man or woman so fully married till it be solemnized in the Congregation in this sense they say the same that I am proving Men must be first Disciples by the professed consent before they are declared such by the Seals or publike sacramental solemnization And that only the professors of saving Faith and their Infants are Disciples may appear by a perusal of the Texts of Scripture that use this word and it wâ—ll not only be found that this which I maintain is the ordinary use of the Word which should make it so also with us but that no Text can be cited where any others are called the Disciples of Christ. For the Major and Minor both observe Piscators Definition of Baptism on Mat. 28.19 Baptismus est sacramentum novi Testamenti quo homines ad Ecclesiam pertinentes ex mandato Christi cultui veri Dei qui est Pater Filius Spiritus Sanctus per ministros verbi consecrantur in fide Remissionis peccatorum spe vitae aeternae confirmantur And he proveth this Description per partes 1. That its a Sacrament 2. That it belongeth to those that pertain to that Church and that they only must be baptized qui ecclesiam fuerint ingressi ac fidem evangelii professi which he proveth from Mark 16.16 he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Vult Ergò saith he ut prius constet de alicuius fide quam baptizetur Vnde Acts 8. Philippus Evangelista non prius baptizare voluit Eunuchum illum Aethiopem quam is professus esset fidem Christi And by the proof from Mar. 16.16 It is apparent that he speaks of saving faith Then he proves the last part of his description Postremo per Baptismum homines in fide spe confirmari liquet ex verbis Qui crediderit baptizatus fuerit salvabitur sic Petrus Act 2.38 resipiscentes Judaeos jubet baptizari in remissionem peâ—catorum hoc est ad confirmandam fidem remissionie peccatorum Item Act. 22.16 Ananias dicit Paulo recens converso Baptizare ablue peccata tua hoc est Baptizare ad confirmandam fidem remissionis peccatorum quod abluta sint peccata tua sanguine Christi Calvin in loc saith Baptizari jubet Christus eos qui nomen evangelio dederint seque professi fuerint Discipulos pâ—rtim ut illis Baptismus sit vitae aeternae tessera coram Deo partim apud homines externum fidei signum Scimus enim Deum nobis testari Adoptionis suae gratiam hoc signo quia nos inserit in corpus filii sui ut nos in grege suo censeat Ideo spirituale nostrum lavacrum quo nos sibi reconciliat ut nova justitia illic representatur Sed quemadmodum gratiam suam Deus hoc sigillo nobis confirmat ita quicunque se ad Baptismum offerunt vicissim quasi data syngrapha obstringunt suam fidem And after verum quia docere prius jubet Christus quam baptizare tantum credentes ad Baptismum vult recipi videtur non ritè administrari baptismus nisi fides precesserit On this pretence he shews that the Anabaptists oppose Infant-Baptism To which he answers not by receding from what is said before but by shewing that eos qui fide in ecclesiam Dei ingressi sunt videmus cum sua sobole censeri in Christi membris in salutis haereditatem simul vocari Nec vero separatur hoc modo Baptismus à fide vel doctrina quia licèt pueri infantes nondam per aetatem side percipiant Dei gratiam Deus tamen eorum parentes compellans ipsus etiam complectitur So that it is Calvins judgement that this very Text which is the most notable Copy of the Apostolical commission for the Baptizing of the discipled Nations doth appoint that saving faith be professed before men be baptized and lie makes these to be
the Disciples with their Infants and that it is Reconciliation Adoption and the Inheritance of salvation that are sealed up to Parents and children by Baptism Paraeus in loc saith Cum Baptismus sit signum faederis testificans baptizatos recipi a Deo in gratiam haud dubiè Pater filius spiritus sanctus sunt unus verus Deus baptizatos in gratiam foedus recipiens And he expoundeth this from Mar. 16.16 shewing that as the order is credere baptizari so that this is a true saving faith lâ—st autem credere Evangelio non solum assentiri doctrinae quod vera sit sed fiducia certa sibi applicare promissionem gratiae nos recipi in gratiam nobis remissa esse peccata propter Christum Commendat vero nobis fidem baptismum duabus rationibus una ab utili salvabitur h. e. vitam aeternam consequetur For my own part I have before entered my dissent to such descriptions of justifying faith as make it to be a Believing that our sins are pardoned but yet I agree with him and the rest in the main that it must be an Act of the will embracing or accepting an offered Christ as well as of the understanding and that the Profession of it must go before Baptism But I shall further prove the Minor from some other Texts of Scripture viz. that they are not Christs Disciples that Profess not saving faith or are not the Infants of such Luke 14.26 27 33. If any man come to me and hate not his Father and Mother and Wife and Children and Brothers and Sisters yea and his own life also he cannot be my Disciple and whosoever doth not bear his Cross and come after me cannot be my Disciple whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath cannot be my Disciple This is spoken of true Disciples in heart the first significatum by him that knew the heart From whence I argue thus If none are Christs Disciples in heart nor can be but those that value him above all and will forsake all for him if he require it then none can be his Disciples by external Profession but those that Profess to esteem him above all and to be willing to forsake all rather then forsake him But the former is proved by the Text The consequence is clear in that the world hath hitherto been acquainted but with two sorts of Christians or Disciples of Christ the one such sincerely in heart and the other such by Profession and the latter are so called because they profess to be what the other are indeed and what themselves are if they sincerely so profess And it is the same thing Professed which makes a man a Professed Christian which being found in the heart doth make a man a hearty Christian. Of these two sorts of Disciples people of God I spake as plain as I could speak pag. 4. of the Saints Rest But Mr. Blake never sticks when he meets with such passages to perswade the world that they are my self-contradictions and that they make for him as if it were all one to Profess a saving faith even the Acceptance of Christ and to Profess a faith short of saving But I perceive by this how he is like to use other Authors that cannot speak for themselves that would perswade men that I speak for him even where I expresly speak for the same cause which I now maintain against him John 13.35 By this shall all men know that ye are my Disciples if ye love one another Here Christ giveth a certain badg by which his true Disciples may be known If only those that love one another are true Disciples in heart then only those that Profess to love one another are Disciples by Profession But c. And that this Love is a special Grace and Inseparable concomitant of saving faith is manifest in that By this we know that we are translated from death to life because we love the Brethren 1 Joh. 3.14 Joh. 8.31 If ye continue in my word then are ye that is you will approve your selves my Disciples indeed If only those are Christs Disciples indeed as to the heart that have the Resolution of perseverance and those only his Practical conquering Disciples who actually persevere then only those are his Professed Disciples that Profess a Resolution to persevere But c. Ergo c. All this that I have said is no more then we have ever practised when in Baptism we renounced the World Flesh and Devil and promised to fight under Christs Banner to our lives end Saith Piscator on John 13.35 Si pro Christianis id est Christs discipulis haberi volumus oportet ut nos mutuò quà m ardentissimè diligamus c. Object Joh. 6. â—0 61 66. Those are called his Disciples that were offended at his word and went back Answ. 1. That 's none of our question whether Professed Disciples may not forsake Christ we easily acknowledge it But let it be proved that these did not before Profess a saving faith 2. This makes as much against the Opponent as me for it was the very want of a Dogmatical faith that they here manifested being offended that Christ should tell them that they must eat his flesh Object Act. 19.1 They are called Disciples that had not heard whether there be a Holy Ghost or not Answ. If they had not heard then it was not an article of necessity to their Justification They had been baptized and professed that faith which was saving when John baptized 2. This is spoken only of that extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost Obj. Any one is a Disciple that is willing to learn of Christ. Answ. No such matter In an improper sence you may so call them but not in Scripture sense where 1. A Disciple and a Christian are all one Acts 11.26 But every one that is willing to learn of Christ is not a Christian therefore not a disciple 2. A Disciple of Christ is one that will take him for the great Prophet of the Church which whosoever heareth not shall be cut off from Gods people and will learn of him as of the Christ. But so wil not all that will learn of him for a man that taketh Christ but for a common wise man as Socrates or Plato may be willing to learn of him and so may be his Disciple in another sense but not in the Christian sense as a Christian. 3. He that is sincerely a Disciple of Christ in heart doth take him for one that by redemption also hath Propitiated the offended Majesty and as King hath authority to rule him and submitteth to him in his whole office as he is the Christ For he cannot be truly a Christian that taketh not Christ as Christ and believeth not in him in all that is essential to his office and so to the object of our faith As he that believeth that Christ is God only or Man only is no Christian so he
Regenerate because he saith as many of you I answer it is manifest that he speaks of all 1 Because it was all of them that were baptized into Christ. 2. He expresly saith as much in the next foregoing words vers 26. For ye are all the Children of God by faith in Christ Jesus To which the words following are annexed as the proof For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. The assumption is implied But you have all bin baptized into Christ therefore ye have all put on Christ and so in him are all the Children of God 2. Note that they are the special gifts of saving grace that are here ascribed to all the Baptized 3. Note also that all this is said and proved to be by faith 4. Note also that it is expresly said to be a â—ustifying faith before vers 24. That we we might be justifyed by faith Indeed this Text affordeth us divers Arguments 1. The Apostle supposeth all the Baptized to profess a justifying faith among the Galathians therefore so must we suppose of others and expect that they do it The Antecedent is proved from vers 24 25. and 27. compared 2. All the Baptized are said to have put on Christ therefore they are supposed to profess that faith by which Christ is put on But that is only justifying faith 3. All that are duly Baptized are baptized into Christ therefore they are supposed to profess that faith by which men are united or ingraffed into Christ but that is only justifying faith But the rest of the Arguments here will be further touched on anon Mr. Blake saith p. 152. Whether all union with Christ imply Regeneration let John 15.2 be consulted where an union with Christ is clearly held out Yet Mr. Baxter brings that text among others to prove that there are some saints that shall never be saved Answ. 1. But I told you that by Saints I meant only those that profess an Acceptance of Christ and not your Saints that only profess a lower faith In this you do by me as you use 1. Union with Christ in the primary and proper sense is proper to the sound believer or else no Title or benefit on earth is proper to him But as those are believers in profession that are not so in heart so those are united to or ingraffed into the Church and so to Christ by an outward Profession who are not so in heart And this is called a Union because they profess that inward Union which they have not which is the famosius significatum Whether these be only equivocally said to be united to Christ we shall enquire in season But tell me where any man was ever said in scripture to be united to Christ without saving faith or the Profession of it 3. I suppose you know how many of our Divines do expound Iohn 15 of a saving Union and take the cautions about unfruitfulness and Apostacy to be de rebus nunquam futuris purposely given that they might not be future But this I stick not on Next he citeth Mr. Cobbet Mr. Hudson and Mr. Ames to shew that Christ is the head of the visible Church and hath many unfruitful members c. Answ. As pertinent as most Citations that I there have met with that is utterly impertinent It 's yielded that as they have a Profession of saving faith so by profession they are members of the visible Church But prove if you can that ever any are such visible members but the professors of a saving faith and their Children I conclude then that Christ hath appointed no Baptism but what is for a visible marriage of the soul to himself as the Protestants ordinarily confess therefore he hath appointed no Baptism but for those that profess to take Jesus Christ for their Husband and to give up themselves to him as his Espouse But this is a Profession of Justifying faith For heartily to take Christ for our Head and Husband is true saving faith and proper to his own Regenerate people if any thing in the world be so And no man can profess to be married to Christ that doth noâ— profess to take him for a Husband Therefore for my part I never intend to baptize any without profession of saving faith As for Mr. Blakes answer that we are oftener said here to be espoused to Christ then married I think that this and many hundred such passages do need no answer But yet I shall say 1. Either will serve my turn No unregenerate man is truly espoused to Christ. 2. Though the whole Church in one be solemnly to be married to Christ at judgement that is presented perfect justified and glorified yet that particular believers are married to Christ here I am resolved by Gods assistance to believe while I believe Isa. 54.5 Eph. 5. and many other Texts of scripture Arg. 10. If Paul account all the Baptized Saints or sanctified men dead with Christ and risen with him such as have put on Christ sons of God by Adoption Abraham seed Heirs according to promise and justified then did they all profess a true justifying faith But the Antecedent is certain ergò so is the consequent The Antecedent Mr. Blake confesseth And I shall prove it by parts The consequence is that which lieth chiefly on me to prove and I shall do both together The Apostle in the beginning of his Epistle to the Corinthians and in may other places calls the whole Church Saints 1 Cor 6.11 He saith to them But ye are washed ye are sanctified c That part of the Antecedent then is certain The consequence I prove thus There are none called Saints in all the new Testament but only such as where in heart Devoted to Christ by a saving faith or Professed so much therefore the word Saints in this case must signifie only such If any will prove a third sort of Saints viz. such as profess a faith not saving they must do that which I never yet saw done 2. The first and most famous signification of the word Saints or Sanctified in the new Testament is only of them that are in heart devoted to Christ by true faith therefore the borrowed or Analogical or less proper signification call it what you list must be of that which hath the likeness or appearance of this and that is only the profession of it and not the profession of another thing 3. Let us peruse the texts and see whether it be not a special Saint-ship which Paul ascribeth to these and therefore as to appearance and Profession they had 1 Cor. 6.11 such were some of you but ye are washed ye are sanctified ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the spirit of our God and that sanctification whâ—ch is joyned with justification which is wrought by the spirit of God cleansing men from their former reigning sins which else would have kept them out of the Kingdom of God and which
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
the Promise in Christ by the Gospel even the unsearchable riches of Christ. Heb. 6.17 The heirs of Promise have their salvation confirmed by Gods Oath And Heb. 1.14 They are all called the Heirs of salvation And Heb. 11.6 9. It is true Justified Believers that have that Title And Jam. 25. they are called Heirs of the Promised Kingdoms And 1 Pet. 3.7 they are called Co-heirs of the same Grace of Life So that to be Heirs in the first and proper notion is to be Sons that have Title to the Inheritance of Glory and therefore to be Heirs in the second Analogical notion for I will not yet anger Mr. Blake with the term Equivocal is to be such as seem such by Profession of that faith which hath the promise of that Glory But the Professors of any other faith are none of them The last Title that I mentioned in the Argument was Justified Paul calleth all the Baptized Church of Corinth Justified None that profess not a Justifying faith are called Justified therefore none such should be Baptized The Major I proved to Mr. Blake out of 1 Cor. 6.11 Ye are washed ye are sanctified ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God Mr. Blake doth not at all deny the Major or the sense of the Text alledged to prove it But darkly in generals Intimateth a denial of the Minor silently passing over that particular Title Justified as if he durst not be seen to take notice of it I confess its sad that good men should be so unfaithfull to the Truth which is so precious and is not their own and which they should do nothing against but all they can for it But in general he saith pag. 152. Of Sacrament Other phrases are there brought or Titles as proper to the Regenerate which are well known in Scripture to be applyed to such as have Apostatized and are brought by Arminians to prove falling away and are censured by their Adversaries Answ. Those other Titles which I proved to be given to the generality of the Baptized were no other than what we ascribe to them to be Heirs and Justified quickened and have all trespasses forgiven them and to be saved And if indeed these Titles be so promiscuously used it will be harder to understand Scripture than Interpreters have hitherto thought Why did not Mr. Blake shew but one Text for this one in hand where any are said to be Justified upon a faith short of Justifying I think he was loath to name this Title lest he should have seemed to contradict himself in the terms or be put to the searching out for a distinction of Justification which we have not yet heard of that he may tell us in what sense the unregenerate are Justified If he should say it is a conditional Justification so Infidels are justified without any faith at all but that is no Justification because not actual Mr. Hudsons words and Ames which he annexeth mention not Justification much less that any not Professing Justifying faith are Justified And here I must needs again say I know no man that hath made Scripture terms so Equivocâ—l as Mr. Blake hath done while he pretendeth to abhor it Two senses of the word sanctified Believers Disciples c. we yield him viz. as they signifie those that are such in Heart and those that Profess to be such in heart But these will not serve his turn but he must moreover have a third sort even such as only Profess another faith short of Justifying yea and a faith which is specificially distinct from Justifying faith yea and that by a Physical specification if he will be understood for he falls upon me for making but a Gradual difference who yet ever affirmed a Moral Specifick difference So that we have not onely many sorts of Sanctification Faith c. but also of Justification too Whether we shall have as many Salvations and as many Heavens or not in his sense I yet find him not express But I would know why he doth so usually say that a faith short of justifying entitleth to Bâ—â—tism and Disciples Saints c. are titles that belong to more then the justified If indeed he take his own short faith to be really justifying and his own new made Saints to be really justified Doth not his own ordinary appropriating the Titles of Regenerate and justified to I know not how to call them for he hath left me no one proper name for them that I can remember to those that are the Heirs of Glory shew plainly that in the primary signification they speak only of such even in hâ—s own apprehension and that therefore the words simply expressed signifie no other bare Professors of justifying faith being but seemingly Analogically secundum quid such and his Professors of another kind of faith being not such in either sense Having gone thus far about Titles let me add another because I find Mr. Blake so oft apply it to the justified I shall crave leave to use that term as proper to them or else I confess I shall be at some loss for a name for them because he hath taken them all out of my hand that I can think off And this is the Title Regenerate Christ hath instituted no Baptism but what is to be a sign of present Regeneration at least to men at age But to men that Profess not a justifying faith it cannot be adminstired as a sign of present Regeneration therefore he hath Instituted no Baptism to be administred to such The Major I have proved already in the first Argument And its plain in Joh. 3.5 Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God and so in Tit. â— 5 Where it is called the Laver of Regeneration In both which though I am of their mind that think that the sign is put for the thing signified yet it may thence plainly appear what is the thing signified even Regeneration or the new birth yea so commonly was this acknowledged by all the Church of Christ that there 's nothing more common in the writings of the Fathers than to take the terms Regenerate Illuminate c. and Bâ—ptized as signifying the same thing or at least spoken of the same person which occasioned one of our late Antiquaries so stifly to plead that Regeneration in Scripture signifieth meer Baptism and that all the Baptized are Regenerate I grant that it oft falls out that Baptism being misapplyed sealeth not Regeneration at present and that the samâ— person may afterward be Regenerate and his remembred Baptism may then be of use to him for the confirmation of his faith But this is not the Institutors commanded use of it to be so administred at first if the party profess not saving Faith though this review of it is a Duty where it was so abused at first of which none afterward The Minor I shall take for granted while Regeneration stands in
neer Learned Friends have done for more than I will speak of It s like he will hardly exact a Profession of saving Repentance from the lapsed for their Restoration to the communion of the Church if he will not do it of the Church themselves in their Sacramental communion Argum. 4. Furthermore they that will not profess true Love to Christ as a Redeemer are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper But no man can Profess true Love that will not Profess true faith Ergo c. The Major is proved in that it is a Sacrament of communion in Love We receive the highest expressions of Christs love and are to receive them with gratitude which hath alwaies love in it Argum. 5. They that profess not true Pope of Christs coming in Glory are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper But none can do that but the Professors of a saving faith Therefore the Major is proved because it is the very end and use of the Sacrament to exercise Hope of Christs coming Do this in remembrance of me till I come which Implyeth Expectation or Hope Argum. 6. No man is to be admitted to the Lords Supper that Professeth not a sincere love to the Saints as Saints But so can none do that Profess not a saving faith without contradicting himself Ergo. The Major is proved in that the very business of that Church there next their communion with Christ is to have communion with the Saints in Love and if they be at variance but with one they must leave their gift at the Altar and go first and be reconciled to their Brother and then come and offer their gift But Mr. Blake is so far from excluding the ungodly that he would not have us so much as disswade them from coming Pag. 196. he saith to that 1. It is as I suppose without all Scripture Precedent to warn men upon account of want of a new life by the Spirit wholly to keep off from this or any other Ordinances of Christ that we should warn men upon this account upon this very ground to hold off from all address to Ordinances I have not learnt Answ. That we should disswade them to come till they have that Faith and Repentance and Love to the Brethren which is the fruit of a new life I have proved and more have done it than you will ever well answer And it will not follow as you pretend that then none must come that have not the certainty of their sincerity in the Faith as I shall further shew when I come purposely to your Objections And where you talk of unregenerate mens being incapable of examining themselves it s a great mistake else no wicked man could despair if he be not able to find himself to be wicked And then it would be a sufficient Evidence of Grace for a man to find himself graceless which is a contradiction And it s an unhappy confusion that Mr. Blake is guilty of almost all along while he pleadeth against the Interest of the Regenerate only in the Sacraments that he confoundeth most commonly the Professors of Justifying Faith and holiness with his Professors of a faith short of Justifying and thus in his arguing against Mr. Hooker and Galaspie and others carrieth on the matter in the dark as if these were all one or the arguments will serve for the one that will serve for the other which is meerly to lose his own and his Readers labour or leave him deceived which is worse How many leaves of that volumn and his former of the covenants are guilty of this dark misleading work I could willingly here answer his Arguments for unregenerate mens right to this Sacrament but 1. I shall meet with much more about their pretended right to baptism anon and the answer of those will serve for both 2. And he hath so mixt the two Cases of Professors of saving faith and of not saving together that if I deal with him on the later he may say he speaks of the former The first Argument of Galaspies 201 which he answereth is from the Nature of Sacraments which are to signifie that we have already Faith in Christ Remission of sin by him and Union with him The sense of the Argument is That seeing Sacraments according to Christs institution are confirming signs presupposing the thing signified both on our part and on Gods therefore none should use them that have not first the thing signified by them at least those at age To this Master Blake answereth This to me is as strange as new that Sacramental signs declare shew that we have Faith remission of sins The Sacrament now in question is a sign of the body blood of Christ in whom by faith remission of sins may be obtained I know but that it is a sign either that we do believe or that we have remission of sin otherwise than upon believing to which this engages but not presupposes I know not Repl. Though I undertake not to defend all the Arguments that other men use in this Case yet this doth so much concern the cause of baptism which I am now debating that I shall give you this reply to it 1. The sacramental Actions are signs as well as the substance of bread and wine The Offer with Take eat signifieth the offer of Christ to us to be received and applyed the Taking and Eating and Drinking signifieth our Acceptance Application of him With himself is offered the pardon of sin and given to all that Accept him which by Taking Eating and Drinking we profess to do It is my duty to tell you that it is sad that a Treatise of Sacraments should profess not to know that our believing and Remission is here signified It s pity but this had been known before you had written of them at least Controversally What Divines are there that deny the Sacraments to be mutual signs and seals signifying and sealing our part as well as Gods and how ill do you to wrong the Church of God by seeking to make men believe that these things are new and strange If it be so to you its pity that it is so But sure you have seen Mr. Gatakers Books against Doct. Word and Davenant wherein you have multitudes of sentences recited of our Protestant Divines that affirm this which you call new It is indeed their most common doctrine that the Sacrament doth pre-suppose Remission of sin and our faith and that they are instituted to signifie these as in being though through infancy or error some may not have some benefits of them till after it is the common Protestant Doctrine that Sacraments do solemnize and publikely own and confirm the mutual Covenant already entered in heart as a King is crowned a Souldier listed a Man and Woman married after professed consent so that the sign is Causal as to the Consummation and Delivery as a Key a Twig and Turff in giving possession but consequential to the Contract
Prayer and Instruction before and after but none by receiving it self It is therefore little to his main purpose or cause that Mr. Blake sect 13. Prop. 11. pag. 200. attempts to prove that the Lords Supper with the word as appendant to it may be serviceable to bring up those of Covenant-Interest to the terms and Propositions of the Covenant may serve to work a man of Profession of faith unto faith saving and Justifying a man in the Name the Lord's to turn unfeignedly and sincerely to the Lord. For x. his half Professor is not in the mutual Covenant which its like he means by Covenant-Interest 2. The distinction between a Nominal Christian and a Sincere a Profession of Justifying faith and that faith it self leavs out the persons that he hath to defend that is The Professors of another species of Faith 3. It s one thing to prove that the Sacrament may convert the unconverted that is that its possible and that it is a thing that eventually hath come to pass and another thing to prove that it is commanded to the unconverted or allowed them to be used to that end The later is the thing that should be proved by him and not the former only But because his Proposition is somewhat more bashfull than some of the Arguments brought as to prove it which have the face to look further I shall briefly examine them Pag. 200.201 Argum. 1. Men of that interest saith he that Baptism receiveth as the intention of the work in order to salvation these the Lords Supper serves to carry on by sanctification to salvation But Baptism receives men of visible Profession only c. Answ. 1. I distinguish between the secret Intention of God de eventu when he Instituted his Ordinances 2. and the Appointed end or use of them and the Intention which he commandeth men And as to the last I distinguish between the Appointed end and use of them as to the Minister and as to the Receiver And so here are three distinct Questions before us Quest. 1. Whether God who appointed this Sacrament did intend that it should eventually be used to the Conversion of any souls To this I answer No man can tell but by the Event But I will not deny it that which a man sinfully doth may be the means of his Conversion If a professed Pagan may be admitted to the Lords Supper no man can be sure that this with the annexed word may not be the occasion or means of his Conversion The same I say of the Excommunicate yet must we not therefore admit such What God decreeth to do by his Ordinances is one thing and how and to what Ends we must use them is another The second Question is Whether the Minister may or must deliver the Sacrament to the unconverted with this Intention that he may be converted by it To this I answer that the unconverted are of two sorts 1. Such as profess not to be converted or savingly to repent and believe and to these he may not Administer it at all and therefore not to such Ends. 2 Such as do profess saving faith and Repentance and to these he may administer it with this disjunctive end that if the person be truly converted it may confirm him if not that if God so please it may be a means of his Conversion The third Question is Whether the unconverted may Demand and receive that Sacrament as a means of Conversion To which I answer flatly No whether it be a saving Faith or another sort of faith which he Professeth if he have not saving Faith it self he may not Demand or Receive the Sacrament at all and therefore not to any such ends Now to come closer to Mr. Blake's Argument 1. I grant the Major as far as through the Lanthorn of his dark ambiguous phrases I can discern the sense of it viz that we may admit those to the Lords Supper that are justly admitted to Baptism if naturally capable and have not since given cause to suspend them And here Mr. Blake shews that it is the lower species of Faith that entitles men in his judgement to the Lords Supper because he maintaineth that this lower species entitleth them to Baptism His Minor I grant of the Professors of saving Faith and deny it of all others that Profess only another faith nor hath he proved that such have a visible Interest or Profession it being not Christianity but only part of its essence which they Profess His 2. Argument is It is the mind of God they be admitted therefore to this end Answ. 1. It is not the mind of God that they should Demand and Receive it therefore not to this end 2. It may not be the admitters principal end but a secondary only on supposition that the Receiver be not what he seems to be and so be not a lawful demander of it 3. It is not the will of God that your Professor of another kind of faith only be admitted In the end he sums up his Argument thus Ministers must give the Sacrament so as it may be to edification and not certainly to destruction But they must give it to some not yet throughly sanctified therefore some not throughly sanctified may receive it to edification and not to destruction Answ. 1. Plus est in conclusione quà m in praemissis You should only have concluded therefore Ministers may give it c. and not therefore some may Receive it For 2. The word certainly which you put in the Major and leave out in the conclusion refers either to the Certainty of the Object or Gods subjective Certainty or the receivers subjective Certainty and in all these respects its false For if God or the Receiver were certain that it would prove destructive yet the Minister may give it if demanded but not if he be certain of it himself But 3. No Minister is required to be certain of the Demanders state or whether the Sacrament will prove to his edification or destruction nor whether the person intend rightly in it but he is bound to give it to a Professor of saving Faith that Demandeth it and to intend his good in it which yet he cannot effect if the Receiver be unmeet To the Minor I say its true but not of those that profess not true sanctification The conclusion as is said is aliene For though there can be no Giving without Receiving yet may there be lawful Giving when it is unlawfully Demanded and Received therefore from lawful giving upon an unlawful Demand to a lawful Receiving is no just consequence Ad hominem I would frame the like Argument on Mr. Blake's principles thus We must give the Sacrament to edification and not certainly to destruction But we must give it to some that have not a Dogmatical faith therefore some that have not a Dogmatical faith must receive it to edification c. The Major is his own The Minor he dare not deny on his grounds for we must
those that are suspected of Heresie had said such words what should we make of them Doth all Passive or Objective power Natural Violent or Neutral come into act Doubtless no man that hath one thought of these things will say so if he do he must say that God can do no more then he doth nor any creature do more then it doth But if there be such a power or Capacity of a thing that shall not exist then it is sad to hear God charged with making all such powers or Capacities in vain He knows why he doth many things which he tells us not the reason of but here there is reason enough apparent to cause us to give God better words I ask't whether Preachers be not bound to endeavour the saving conversion of whole Nations He answereth I think they are to bring them if Heathen to a visible Profession and as many as they can to thorow-conversion Repl. 1. This is no answer to my question unless it import a concession of what was denyed Must men endeavour to convert a whole Nation or not 2. If we must endeavour to convert no more than we can convert then we must know the success before we endeavour which cannot be and must endeavour to convert no more then will be converted which is worse then false 3. I will not endeavour to perswade any man to Profess to be what he is not or to have what he hath not or to do what he doth not He next noteth it as a remarkable contradiction in adjecto that I say Vocation uneffectual is common to Pagans saying that Calling in Scripture Phrase is not a barâ— tender but accompanyed with a professed answer Repl. This is like much of the rest Let these Texts be judge Prov. 1.24 Because I have called and ye refused I have stretched out my hand and no man regarded but ye have set at nought all my counsel c. so Isa. 65.12 When I called ye did not answer when I spake ye did not hear c. so Isa. 50 2. 66.4 and Jer. 7.13 35.17 Mat. 22.3 5. He sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden c. But they made light of it c. I shall recite no more It hath not been thought a contradiction by Protestants or Papists that I know of till now to talk of uneffectual calling So much of Mat. 28.19 To what I said from Mar. 16.16 litle that needs a Reply is answered He saith If I will contend for an exact order then he must say that faith always preceds and never follows after Baptism Repl. In reason we must distinguish between a precedency of prescribed duty and of event and not seek to blind the Reader as you speak by confusion There is constantly this order in the prescribed duty that no man should seek Baptism but a true believer for himself and his seed and no man should baptize any but those that profess this true belief and their seed This is the fixed order of duty But what then will it follow that eventually faith never followeth baptism nor baptism never goeth before faith Yes when you can prove that man never sinneth by omitting his duty and that God never recovereth a sinner by his Grace You add And then he may preach in England to build up converts but not to convert Repl. True if there be none in England that neglected that faith which God commanded before nor received baptism in a case which is unmeet for it nor any that were baptized in infancy when they were uncapable of believing As to your frequent objection of the Nullity of such baptism I shall Null it anon in its proper place His concession in terms from 1 Pet. 3.21 he retracteth by an exposition of his words as spoken Rhetorically and thinks that ony one that ever read Rhetorick may know his sense when there is such a Wood of Tropes and Schems that such Novices may sooner be lost in them then hunt on t the sense of every Rhetorician The proper sense he takes to be an egregious peice of affected non-sense for then it were true that justifying faith is a promise Repl. It only follows that justifying faith is not only an Assent but the wills consent to the covenant of grace or that Christ be ours and we his and this is heart-covenanting and that the external verbal promising or covenanting with God is the profession of this faith And it is not my fault if I be put to tell you that as long as you are such a stranger to the nature of justifying faith as many such dark though confident passages in your books do import your Arguings will want salt if not sense I know this is like to displease But what remedy To the Text. Act. 8.37 he answereth pag. 176 that indeed he never met with any thing either in Scripture or Reason produced thâ—t carries with him so much as any color for it this excepted Repl. This is not my first Observation that confidence is not alwaies a sign of a true judgement and the seeing of no difficulties before us proves us not to know more than other men His particular answers are 1. Philip. may call for that de bene esse when the Eunuch was to be admitted which was not yet essential to his admittance Repl. 1. It s strange that when we are disputing what is of a necessity to a just admittance that we must turn to dispute of the Essentials of an admittance I never thought that any thing but admittance was essential to admittance but there are many things siâ—c quibus non licet 2. Philip is determining a question and giveth this in as the decision If thou believe with all thy heart thou mayest And to say that this is but de bene esse meaning that it includeth not the Negative otherwise thou mayest not is to make Philip to have deluded and not decided or resolved Use the like liberty in expounding all other Scripture and you 'l make it what you please The second Answer is that Dogmatical faith is truly a Divine faith Repl. But not the Christian Faith nor anywhere alone denominateth men Believers in Scripture I remember but one Text John 12.42 where it is called Believing on Christ and but few more where it is simply called Believing but none where such are called Believers Disciples or Christians or any thing that intimateth them admitted into the visible Church without the Profession of saving faith added to this Assent The rest which he here addeth we shall take in when we come purposely to speak of that subject I conclude That all examples of baptism in Scripture do mention only the administration of it to the Professors of saving faith and the precepts give us no other direction And I provoke Mr. Blake as far as is seemly for me to do to name one precept or example for baptizing any other and make it good if he can Argum. 17. is
two sorts of Teaching are confounded which Christ distinguisheth Mat. 28.19 20. That teaching which draweth men to Christ and maketh them Disciples and that which instructeth them when they are his Disciples that which perswadeth them to receive Christ Jesus the Lord and that which perswadeth them accordingly to walk in him For they take him for a Disciple that is but learning to be a Disciple meerly because he submitteth to learn and hath learned before some preparatory truths though yet he be not made a Disciple indeed nor profess so to be Mr. Blake is deeply offended with me for saying that Hypocrites that seem not only to be found Believers and profess a Justifying faith when they have it not are only equivocally or analogically Christians or members of the Church c. But I shall say somewhat more concerning those Believers that are described by him who do not so much as profess a saving faith viz. that they are no members of the Church at all if notorious and are not so much as to be named Christians nor to be admitted into the visible Church No man can prove that ever one man was admitted a Church-member in all the New Testament upon the Profession of any lower kind of faith than that which is the condition of Justification Otherwise we should have two distinct Churches specifically different or two sorts of Christianity and Christians differing totâ specie because the faith which is here made their qualification doth specifically differ by a moral specification When the Jaylor Act. 16 30 31 32 33 34. was admitted into the Church by Baptism with his houshold it was upon the Professing of such a believing by which both he and his houshold might be saved as is before shewed And so of all others in those times Argum. 19. If we once admit men to baptism or the Lords Supper upon the Profession of any other than Justifying faith we shall be utterly confounded and not be able to give any satisfactory Description of that Faith and so never be able to Practise our Doctrine as being utterly uncertain whom to baptize That I may the better manifest this I shall examine all the considerable Descriptions of that faith which I can meet with The Papists themselves are not agreed in this business sometime they speak as if a bare Assent would serve the turn but commonly they add that there is a Necessity also of consent 1. To be subject to the Church 2. To live under the Ordinances And if they take the Intention of the party or Parents or their Godfathers and Godmothers to be necessary as they do the Intention of the Priest then a bare Profession with them will not serve nor can they tell when any one is baptized Mr. Blake doth speak so much and purposely of this Point that one would think we may expect an exact Description of this faith from him if from any man especially in his last Book when I had so earnestly Intreated him before to do it because of the omission of it in his former Book And yet even in this hath he done nothing but involve and obscure his meaning more than before though I had purposely urged him to a plain discovery of his sense even somewhat beyond the bounds of modesty as it is esteemed of in common cases For I perceived that the stress of our differences did rest much in this because no wise man will leave his grounds till he see where he may have better unless he mean to be for nothing or of no Religion there 's no reason a man should upon every opposed difficulty relinquish that he hath And here that I may do Mr. Blake no wrong I shall cite his mind in his own words and gather as many of his disclosures of it as I can find For what he hath said in his Book of the Covenants I have spoken to it already in my Apologie And I write nor for those lazy Readers that had rather err than be at the pains of reading what is already written I shall therefore suppose that and gather what he saith in his Treatise of the Sacraments Pag. 109. he saith I confess as much of Repentance in them as was required in any to the acceptation of Baptism namely A Renunciation of their false way and a professed Acceptation of the tender of the Gospel And after to renounce his way of Paganism Judaism and to profess and engage to a Christian faith conversation Here I understand not Mr. Blake's english if he do not plainly renounce his cause and say the same that I do and so make vain his industrious opposition The tender of the Gospel is the tender of Christ and pardon and life to all true Acceptors of it If the professed Accepâ—aâ—ion of this tender be not professed saving faith beyond all common faith I must despair of knowing what faith is and consequently being sure that I have it and that I may be saved by it And if professing a true Christian faith and conversation and engaging thereto be not a professing of that which is proper to the sanctified I mean in the special sense then Mr. Blake hath made a new Christian Faith and Conversation which Scripture never prescribed nor described Pag. 172. He gives another but the most express answer which is likest to be his mind For a direct answer I say it it not profession to say we have this faith but a profession of our assent to the necessity of it with engagement to it that gives this little so P. 173. I say do profess of those that have those secret reservations wrapt up in their breasts not yet from under the power of lusts yet convinced of their duty and acknowledging the Necessity that it is the mind of God that they should be Baptized and have admission to Ordinances in order to bring them more sincerely and unreservedly to God And this being the will of God as you seem to yield when you say we are bound to Baptize them I say they have right in the sight of God to Baptism I shall begin my Reply with his last passage and I must needs say that Mr. Blake doth unworthily abuse me and my words in saying that I seem to yield that we are bound to baptize them Them What them My own words which he citeth to prove this by me are these Vocation which is effectual only to bring men to an outward Profession of saving faith is larger then Election that makes men such whom we are bound to baptize Forsooth in these words I contradict my self I seem to give Mr. Blake the cause I cannot but say that it is pity the Church should be troubled with such an undigested undistinguishing management of controversies for men to write so learnedly and industriously before they observe what they say Is the outward Profession of a saving faith which I say makes men such as we are bound to baptize the same thing with the
this cannot be his sense For the man is not fradulent and besides his following arguing sheweth the contrary But then I confess that arguing amazeth me again He will prove that he is for the necessity of the profession of a justifying faith to Baptism because he is for the necessity of a Dogmatical faith and that faith must be profess Wonderful Doth he make a justifying and a Dogmatical faith all one No he constantly distinguisheth and opposeth them How then doth he prove that he asserteth the necessity of the profession of a justifying faith because he asserteth the necessity of a professed Dogmatical faith Reader I am at a loss I dare not say Mr. Blake is so perhaps he understands himself make thy best on 't for I can make nothing on 't or worse then nothing But if really he will be of this mind that the Reality of a dogmatical faith is necessary and the profession of a justifying faith I shall not only thank him for giving quiet profession to the truth but I will give him some back again and will come my self a beg lower then he and will affirm that we must give them the Sacraments that profess a saving faith though they have not so much as the Reality of a Dogmatical faith Yet Reader if thou think that there is any parcel of the cause which Mr. Blake doth not expresly give up after all his labour adjoin his words p. 124. and rest satisfied so that I conceit no promise of these Ordinances made to such a faith but an actual investiture of every such believer in them I have made the best enquiry I can into Mr. Blake's sense and I cannot find any reasonable footing for a man to fix upon if we once forsake our present hold and say that it is a profession of some other faith short of that which justifyeth which is the title to the Sacraments For as no man can prove out of Scripture then what faith it must be but we shall there be at a loss so whatever he assert we have evidence enough to prove it insufficient A Real Dogmatical faith cannot be the title For then the Baptizer must know the heart The profession of a bare Dogmatical faith or assent cannot be it For then he that hath the faith of Devils persecutors of Christ and such as are supposed to sin against the Holy Ghost should have title Some consent therefore of the will there must be But to what if not to have Christ as he is offered who can tell A consent to be externally Baptized will not serve A consent to Baptism as Baptism comprizeth saving faith A consent to be a named Christian and to live among them may be without any profession of Christianity No man can tell where to fix nor what we must consent to to procure a Title if once we forsake the present ground If any man will give us yet a more exact Description of a faith short of justifying entitling to Baptism and the Lords Supper I shall be willing to examine it For hitherto I cannot see where I should set my foot if I should leave the ground I stand on I now come to examine the Arguments that are brought for the contrary opinion And I shall begin with Mr. Blake's and then proceed to some which others insist upon In his Treâ—t of Sacr. pag. 161. Mr. Blake beginneth some as he calleth them Additional Arguments that a faith short of that which justifieth gives title to Baptism ARGUMENT I. Mr. Blake They that have right in the sight of God to many and great Priviledges of his gift have a right in his sight to the first and leading Priviledges this I think cannot be denied having a right to those that follow they have right to those that lead If any had in the time of the Law right to the Passeover they had right to Circumcision and if any now have right to the Lords Supper they have right to Baptism But those of a faith that is short of that which â—ustifies have right to many and great Priviledges in the sight of God This is clear from the Apostle Rom. 3.1 The Jew outwardly where Circumcision of heart was wanting had every way much benefit and advantage he had therefore right to Circumcision and those with him that are short of a faith that justifies have right in the sight of God to Baptism ANSWER I. The question is not in the conclusion If all be granted it s nothing for Mr. Blake's cause or against mine It is not all one to conclude those that are short of a faith that â—ustifies have right and such a faith gives right or is the qualification condition or evidence of right either A man that is a Burgess of such a Corporation hath right to be Major But his Burgesship gives him not that right but his election A Frenchman hath right to the Crown of France but not because he is a Frenchman The Jew outwardly Rom. 3. had not his right by a faith short of justifying But he had first an actual abode among Ordinances and the offers of Grace and helps to salvation by free providentiall disposal of mercy 2. The claim that he made to Church-priviledges before men must be upon his Professing of saving faith viz. That he took the Lord only for his God and believed in him according to the tenor of the Promise and not upon the having or Professing of a faith of another Species This answer sufficeth as to the present controversie But because Mr. Blake doth seem also to intend these Arguments to the following controversie I shall briefly enervate them as to both that I may not be put to go over them again when I come to that controversie 2. I deny that Baptism is the first and leading Priviledge of Gods gifts It is a great Priviledge to have the Gospel preached to them to have pardon conditionally offered them that is if they will accept of Christ to be converted and made a true believer to be born of Christian Parents c. These and more are Priviledges and before baptism 3. I distinguish at large of the term Right in my Apologie Here let it suffice to say 1. Right is properly so called which in this case must arise from a promise or proper gift 2. Or it is Analogically so called which ariseth 1. indirectly from Gods command to the Parent Priest Pastor c. to do this for all that require it upon a profession of true faith 2. Or from bare permission or providential disposal 4. I distinguish also the Jews case from ours They had some promise of a continuance of Ordinances among them though not for perpetuity yet for a long time which no Church on earth hath now 5. And now I answer to the Minor 1. An Analogical improper right resulting from permission and a command to Ministers to Baptize all that upon such a profession require Baptism this I ever granted to all that profess saving
faith 2. But a proper right from promise or proper gift which may warrant them to claim or require the thing from God or man this I deny to any but true believers and their seed They may not lawfully require it though we must give it them if they do require it upon such a profession 3. But without a profession of saving faith they may neither require it nor we give it if they do require it whatever other short faith they have or profess 4. Thus also the Case was with the Jews allowing the difference made by the foresaid peculiar Promise to them ARGUMENT II. Mr Blake Those that are a People by Gods gracious dispensation nigh to God comparative to others have right in the sight of God to visible admittance to this more near relation This I think is clear men have right to be admitted to their right But those that come short of Justifying faith are a people by Gods gracious dispensations nigh unto God comparative to others this is plain in the whole visible Nation of the Jews as appears Deut. 4 7. Psal. 147.19 and 148.14 Those therefore that are short of Justifying faith have right in the sight of God to admission to this nearer relation ANSWER The Jews were nigher to God than other people 1. In that they had the offers of Grace which other people had not 2. And many great Deliverances and temporal priviledges which others had not Both these Infidels and Heathens may now have and therefore they prove no Right to Baptism 3. They were nigher by some promises peculiar to that Nation which is nothing to us 4. They were nigher by their Consent to the offers of Grace and the Covenant of the Lord which was proper in sincerity to the sanctified 5. And by their profession of Consent and external engaging themselves to the Lord whether they had inwardly faith or not Now to the Major I grant it but add that the three first sorts of Nearness give not right to Baptism All admission to near Relation comparatively to others is not by Circumcision or Baptism But it is only a Nearness in the two last senses that are questionable as to this And I have before shewd in what sense true Consent to the Covenant gives right and in what sense an outward profession of Consent gives right and that your common faith gives none in either sense Lastly if your conclusion were granted it s nothing to our question For as is said all admission to near relation is not by baptism One Infidel may be nearer God and the Kingdom of Heaven then another and yet 〈◊〉 be baptizable for all that ARGUMENT III. Mr. Blake Those that God ordinarily calls his People and owns as his openly avouching himself to be their God have right in the sight of God to the signs and cognizance of his People and are to have admission into the society and Fellowship of his People This is plaâ—n if God in Covenant will own servants then his stewards may open the door to them if he will own sheep his servants doubtless may mark them But God owns all in visible communion though short of faith that is Justifying as his People and openly avouches himself to be their God as in abundant places of Scriture is evident See Deut. 26.18 These have therefore right to the signs and cognizances of his people to admission into the Society and Fellowship of his People ANSWER 1. To the Major with the fore-mentioned distinction of Right applyed as before I grant it 2. To the Minor I say God owneth them as his people by internal consent and covenanting who indeed are so and he owneth them as his People by outward Covenanting or Expression or Profession of consent who are such But those that have neither of these but only profess some shorter faith or consent to some other Covenant or but part of this he will not own in either relation nor would have them taken into the Communion of his Church Nor do you prove any such thing for Deut. 26.18 is so much against you that I marvel you were not troubled at the citing of it For that Text alone is enough to confute all your pompous allegations out of the Old Testament from the Church state of the Jews The words are Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walk in his waies and to keep his Statutes and his Commandments and his Judgements and to hearken to his voice And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people c. Do you think that they that in heart consent that the Lord be their God and to walk in his waies c. have not saving faith Then there was no such thing then on the earth And if they had such faith who sincerely consented then they Professed such faith that Professed such consent And the word avouching sheweth that it was present profession and not only a promise for some distant futurity This Argument therefore is but like the rest ARGUMENT IV. Mr. Blake Those whom the Spirit of God ordinarily calls by the name of Circumcision they had a right in Gods sight to Circumcision and those of like condition have like right to baptism This I think is clear the Spirit of God doth not mis-name doth not nick-name nor ordinarily at least give equivocal names But men short of Justifying faith are called by the Spirit of God by the name of Circumcision as needs no proof Christ was a Minister of the Circumcision Rom 15.8 And he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Those then of a faith short of that which is Justifying have right in the sight of God to Baptism ANSWER 1. I have no need to deny the Major but it is not sound for they are called the Circumcision i. e. the Circumcised because they were actually Circumcised and not because that all that were so had right to it 2. To the Minor I grant it but with this note that it is not because of their short faith that they were to be circumcised but upon the Parents or their own profession and sincere consent to the Covenant The Conclusion again containeth not your Thesis There 's nothing in it about giving title or any thing of necessary connexion ARGUMENT V. Mr. Blake Those that are the servant of God whom God owns as his servants have right in his sight to be received into his house and to be entitled to the Priviledges of his Church This we think should not be denyed and that God will take it ill if any shall deny it But men short of that faith which Justifies are owned of God as his servants as is clear Lev. 25.41 42. There every Israelite that was sold to any of the Children of Israel and his Children are called of God his servants and that as Israelites of which a great part were void of that faith which Justifies Therefore those that are short of faith
which Justifies have right in the sight of God to be thus received This Argument me thinks might be of force with Mr. Baxter When he had urged it for proof that infants are servants and ought to be baptized he addâ— pag. 18. is not here direction enough to help us to judge of the mind of God whether infants are his Disciples and Servants or no Doth not God call them his servants himself What more should a man expect to warrant him to do so Men call for plain Scripture and when they have it they will not receive it so hard is it to inform a forestalled mind If God took such care upon that account that they should not be held in bondage under any of his People he takes like care that they should not be kept from the Society of his People ANSWER 1. The Major is true 1. distinguishing of Right as before 2. and of Servants and taking the word Servants in a peculiar sense as Lev. 25.41 doth The Minor also and the Conclusion is thus granted But Mr. Blake's Conclusions have a common unhappiness to be strangers to the question Doth it follow because I must baptize those that profess sincere Covenanting or Faiâ—h though they have but a faith of another sort that therefore I must baptize them on the account of that other faith By such an Argument I may as well prove that Infidelity or Heathenism gives right to Baptism thus Many Infidels or Heathens have right to baptism that is those that in heart are such have such a Right as yours pleaded for upon the account of an external Profession of Christianity Therefore infidelity or Heathenism gives them right If this Consequence must be denyed so must yours ARGUMENT VI. Mr. Blake Those that bring forth Children to God have a right in the sight of God to be of his houshold and to be taken into it This is plain especially to those that know the Law of servants in families that all the Children in right were the Masters and had their relation to him But those that are short of Justifying faith bring forth Children to God Ezek. 16.20 21. ANSWER This Argument is sick of the common disease of the rest the Conclusion is a stranger to the question Quâ tales they bring not forth Children to God in any Church sense ARGUMENT VII Mr. Blake Children of the Kingdom of God or those that are Subjects of his Kingdom have right in the sight of God to be received into his Kingdom This Proposition Mr. Baxter hath proved pag. 21. therefore I may save my pains But those that are short of faith that Justifies are Children or Subjects of this Kingdom Mat. 8.12 The Children of the Kingdom shall be cast into outer darkness Those therefore that are short of Justifying faith have right in the sight of God to be thus received ANSWER This Argument also hath the same distemper It s nothing to the Queâ—â—ion They are Children of the Kingdom visibly in regard of the profession of a saving faith and not of any common faith thaâ— is short of it Prove that or you say nothing ARGUMENT VIII Mr. Blake The Children of the Covenant have right in the sight of God to the Seal of the Covenant This is evident the seal is an affix to the Covenant Where a Covenant is made and a seal appointed there it is not of right to be denied But those that are short of faith that Justifies are the children of the Covenant Act. 3 25. The Apostle speaking to the People of the Jews saith Ye are the Children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers ANSWER Still the Question is wanting in the conclusion The same Answer serves to all It s a sad case that the Church of God should be thus used by its Friends to have such gross mistakes presented to the unskilfull which to use your own phrase to me pa. 145. do serve only to blind the Reader ARGUMENT IX Mr. Blake Disciples of Christ have right in the sight of God to Baptism as appears in Christs commissiion Mat. 28.19 But many are Disciples of Christ that are short of a Faith that justifies therefore those that are short of a Faith that justifies have right in the sight of God to Baptism If all that I have said pa. 208. of the Treatise of the Covenant to prove this assumption be too weak as I think it is not Mr. Baxters proof pag. 21. of his Treatise hath sure strength sufficient there he proves that Infants are Disciples because they are subjects of Christs Kingdom and what Kingdom he means he there explains himself I speak not here saith he of his Kingdom in the largest sense as it containeth all the world nor yet in the strictest as it containeth only his Elect but in the middle sense as it containeth the Church visible as it is most commonly used And therefore by the way not equivocally used Those then of this middle posture non-elect are Disciples ANSWER Still the same Error None are Disciples upon the account of your other faith but of either saving faith or the profession of it And as this and all the rest do look to the Other Controversies the foresaid distinction of Right applyed as is often done before is all that need to be said in answer to them ARGUMENT X. Mr. Blake Christians have right in the sight of God to Baptism This is Mr. Baxter's Proposition in the page before quoted and in reason is plain Christians must not be kept out of Christian fellowship This is Mr. Baxter's likewise in the place quoted he makes Disciples Christians and subjects of Christs visible Kingdom to be one and the same Therefore those that are short of Justifying faith have Right c. ANSWER Still the same disease You should have concluded that your lower faith gives Right None are Christians on the account of your lower kind of faith but only of saving faith or the profession of it ARGUMENT XI Mr. Blake All that ought to be admitted visible Church-mâ—mbers ought to be admitted in the sight of God to baptism This none can question unless they charge it as Tautological and it is Mr. Baxter's pa. 2.3 and the medium of that Argument which he makes the chief of all he useth But those that are short of Justifying faith are members of the Church visible Therefore those that are short of justifying faith are to be admitted to baptism The assumption is his likewise where he distinguisheth the visible Kingdom from the Elect and no man can deny it that grants the distinction of a Church into visible and invisible ANSWER The same disease still None short of saving faith ought to be admitted member but on the Profession of it What if I distinguish the visible Kingdom from the Elect Once for all I let you know that I take saving faith to be the constitutive or necessary qualification of a real or mystical member and Profession of
that faith to be the qualifying condition of Visibility of Member-ship But your other kind of Faith to be neither ARGUMENT XII Mr. Blake The Children of God have right in the sight of God to be admitted to Baptism this is clear enough but men short of Justifying faith are Children of God even those that drew down judgements on the old world as Gen 6.2 The whole body of the children of Israel Deut. 14.1 ANSWER The same Error continued requireth the same Answer ARGUMENT XIII Mr. Blake Those whom God ingraff's by his power into the true Olive and makes partakers of the fatness of the Olive they have right in the sight of God to be admitted This is plain God ingraffing right must not be denied but he ingraff's by his power those that are short of that faith that justifies even the whole body of the Church of the Gentiles and we expect the like of the Church of the Jews as appears from the Apostle Rom. 11. Therefore those that are short of a justifying faith have right in the sight of God to Baptism ANSWER Again the same Error Therefore accept the same Answer ARGUMENT XIV Mr. Blake All of those that professedly embrace a Gospel-tender in which there is a conditional Promise of Justification Adoption Glorification have right in the sight of God to all Ordinances ordinarily necessary and requisite to bring them up to these conditions and to the fruition of these glorious Priviledges and consequently to baptism the leading priviledge This none can deny that know the readiness of Christ in imparting saving ordinances to a People But those that are short of faith which is justifying may embrace a Gospel-tender in which there is a conditional Promise of Justification Adoption Glorification Those therefore that are short of faith which is justifying have right in the sight of God to all such Ordinances and consequently to Baptism ANSWER Embracing is a Metaphor and can signifie nothing here but their Wills Consent and Use. The words Gospel tender signifie either the thing tendered or the act of the tenderer To consent to and so embrace the latter is no more than to be willing to hear or to consent thaâ— God and his Messengers shall make the render This an Heaâ—hen or Infidel may do To consent to and embrace the thing tendered upon the terms that it is tendered is saving faith In that sense therefore I deny the Minor and in the former the Major as extending to Baptism All that consent that Christ shall be offered to them ought not to be baptized nor any on that account None that consent to have Christ offered Christ as Christ can be truly said to be short of saving faith If by embracing you mean Metonymically the profession of embracing Christ then you say as I say give up your Cause It s that Profession and not his short faith nay that without any faith that will warrant us to baptize him ARGUMENT XV. Mr. Blake If the Apostle argue for a right to Baptism from gifts that are common to the justified and unjustified then faith which is short of justifying gives right in the sight of God to Baptism This none can deny unless they will call the Apostles Logick into question and deny his Consequence But the Apostle thus argues for a right to Baptism from those gifts that are common to the justified and unjustified This is plain Act. 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we The Holy Ghost there is the gift of the Holy Ghost then poured out the gift of tongues as in the 45 46. verses is held forth which is a gift not only inferiour to Charity but such as may be served from it 1 Cor. 13.1 A gift of that kind that men of a miraculous faith ordinarily did as in an instant conferr They are therefore gifts common to the justified and unjustified Those therefore of faith short of that which is justifying have right to Baptism ANSWER This is the only Argument of all the seventeen that doth so much as speak to the question A strange way of arguing To the Major 1. I deny the Consequence The Argument will not hold from one common gift to any common gifts nor to this common faith Prove this Consequence 2. I distinguish in the Antecedent between arguing from gifts as a Title or the condition of a Title and arguing from them as satisfactory evidences of a Title such as profession it self is To the proof from Acts 10.47 I say further It followeth not he that hath received the Holy Ghost may be baptized therefore he that hath your common faith may be baptized For that 's no evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost 2. The Holy Ghost was promised only to be true Believers Mark 16.17 and not to any others Yet God did not hereby restrain his own power from giving it to others Seeing therefore God had promised it to true believers though he did give it to some others it followeth that it was a probable evidence of saving faith though not a certain And therefore it might warrant us to baptize them as Profession it self might do Especially when it accompanied that Profession seeing that both Evidences are more full than one and yet one is sufficient as to us 3. You cannot prove that ever God gave the holy Ghost to any that professed not saving faith Nor yet that any man was baptized upon any such gift of Miracles without the profession of saving faith Those Acts 10. confessed Christ and professed faith before they were baptized 4. You cannot prove that it was only common gifts of the Spirit that is meant in Acts 10.47 For ordinarily the Holy Ghost was given at once for Sanctification and such extraordinary works And anologum per se positum stat pro significato famosiori And their praising God doth intimate their love to God and honour of him and sense of his goodness which proceed from the sanctifying Spirit ARGUMENT XVI Mr. Blake If the promise be to others besides Believers then so is the seal for to whom God promiseth to them he engageth himself to perform But the Promise is to others therefore the seal is to others This will be evident if it be once understood that it is only the conditional Covenant which God sealeth by the Sacraments for this promise is made to unbelievers though the good promised is not to be enjoyed by any but those that perform the condition ANSWER The 16th Argument Mr. Blake fetcheth from my words to Mr. Tombs that he may prove me a self-contradicter But I do not contradict my self every time Mr. Blake understandeth me not I confess still that the Seal is to others besides Believers but though the promise be conditional we must not seal to any but those that profess consent to the Conditions And therefore not to any but those that profess to be true believers ARGUMENT XVII
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
Adultorum scilicet Infantium At cuique istorum generum competit una tantummodo ratio introeundi in communionem foederis illius omnium rerum quae ex foedere pendent Adultis scilicet fides per quam Christi promissiones amplectuntur Infantibus conditio nascendi ex parentibus fidelibus Thes. 11. pag. 51. Ad vitam spiritualem quod attinet adulti quidem non intrumittuntur in foederis Evangelici communionem sui nescii Intromittuntur enim per fidem Fides autem est actus quidam intellectûs tanto cum acriore sui sensu conjunctus quantò intellectus ipse facultas est praestantissima cum acerrimo sensu praeditus Thes. 12. Baptismus autem propriè in eum finem destinatus est ut vitam nobis esse indultam testificaretur Thes. 13. Vno verbo Baptismo in nobis obsignatur Adoptio nostra Thes. 15. Primarius ejus magìs proprius usus in eo consistit ut ipsius peccati destructionem abolitionem à Christo factam actu nobis communicari testetur Pag. 372. Thes. 45. Ideóque neque Sacramentum neque quodquam ejusmodi seu signum seu tessera seu pignus aut arrhabo ulli traditur nisi qui sese Verbo Promissioni fidem habere profiteretur which is their common description of saving Faith Pag. 78. Thes 37. Nec vero minùs ex eo constat cur Infidelium liberi non baptizentur Nam Evangelicum foedus quidem quatenus conditionatum est ad omnes omnino homines spectat est enim Christus omnium Redemptor modò credant At quatenus absolutum est pertinet ad solos actu fideles est enim eorum Christus Redemptor tantùm quia soli credidere Quod enim foedus conditionatum appellatur propterea quod ex praestatione Conditionis ejus executio pendet id praestitâ conditione evadit absolutum Jam verò quamdius foedus conditionatum est promissiones quae foedere continentur non pertinent actu ad eos qui Conditionem non praestiterunt Ideo eos aliter non alloquintur quam dicendo Si credideris salvus eris si non credideris manet ira Dei super te Quoniam igitur Baptismus institutus est tantùm atque comparatus obsignandis Dei promissionibus in iis ad quos pertinent nemo ex infidelibus baptizatur qui non profiteatur sese actu credere infidelitatem deposuisse Et pag. 79. Thes. 40. Quemadmodum enim qui credit actu jure baptizatur postquam baptizatus est jus habet indubitatum ad salutem Marc. 16.16 sic etiam qui nascitur ex parentibus fidelibus itidem jure baptismo tingitur postquam c. Thes. 38. Si deficiant illi ab Ecclesiâ aut vero ex eà ob vitam turpiter actam aut puritatem Religionis ejuratam atque adeo in eo malo pertinaciam invictam ejiciantur tum quia non censentur ampliùs esse fideles non potest quin eorum liberi eâ praerogativâ excidant Pet. Molinaeus of Tradition translat Engl. pag. 62. saith It is essential to the Sacrament to be taken for the Remission of sins as it was first instituted by the Lord Mr. Crook in his Guide to Godliness § 14 15. Page 54. and in his Direct to Happiness Sect. 14 15. pag. 13 14. shews himself of the same mind Mr. Liford of Admission to Sacr. saith pag. 30. that All carnal persons that are conscious to themselves of living in any known sin ought to keep themselves back from the partaking of the Sacrament and all that have not broken their league with their lusts nor yet fully resolved to part with their darling sins such persons are in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity they have no part nor lot in this matter because their heart is not right in the sight of God they only cover iniquity with an outside holy profession And p. 33. All that profess Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ should be admitted All that having been baptized and are able to examine themselves and discern the Lords Body cannot be charged to live scandalously in any sin contrary to their profession without giving further proof of real sanctification p. 43. The profession that he requires is That men must repent lead new lives and that themselves do so and intend to do so So others commonly Three of the most learned Godly Divines of Scotland I have in the following Disputations cited The 58. Mr. Galespie whose twenty Arguments Mr. Blake attempts a Confutation of and I have before vindicated them The 59. Mr. Rutherford whose words I have after cited at large The 60. Mr. James Wood Professor at Aberdene who declareth himself agreed with me in the Qualification necessary to Baptism as I have afterwards cited his words Any one that would have more may peruse our English Divines that purposely write of Preparation to the Lords Supper such as Bradshaw Hildersham Pemble Dike Bolton and abundance more and they shall soon see that it is true Repentance and Faith that they require as necessary to a lawful Receiving and the Profession of these to our Lawful Administring But I will weary the Reader no longer with Citations but only shall add a few words of Mr. Blakâ— himself and leave you to find out the sense Mr. Blake of Sacraments pag. 124. So that I conceit no Promise of these Ordinances made to such a Faith but an actual investiture of every such believer in them And if no Promise then no Right to them by Prâ—mise or any Moral Grant And if only actual investiture they can make no just claim to that investiture before hand for the actual investiture being not yet existent can give no right to it self nor doth that investiture justifie the seeking or demanding or possessing of it for all possession is not lawful Pag. 147. 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 Pag. 157. How comes I pray you that future in In obligationibus ubi nullus certus statuitur dies quovis die debetur There is no day overtaken but the Engagement is for present And he that professeth to consent to be a true believer at present or the next minute doth in sense profess himself a true believer at present 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 justifying Faith is required to Baptism And what is that to me who never denyed it but in plain words have often affirmed it It is sufficiently implyed where I
nothing of mine that can be so plausibly objected to me as a Contradiction to the present assertion as these last words but yet there is no just ground for that objection if I be rightly understood These words are plainly bent against their opinion that make Election or saving Grace to be the Title to Sacraments which the Church must judge of and that not by the Profession of the Claimer but as distrusting his word upon other evidences of Grace as discoveries of the time and manner of Conversion or the practise of those Duties wherein a stricter profession is manifested or the like The men that I oppose hold these Assertions 1. We must give the Sacrament to none but the godly in sincerity 2. We must not believe a mans Verbal Profession though not contradicted 3. But we must require the visible proofs of his godliness 4. At least such as make it probable to us that he is godly To these men I answer 1. That it is false that we must give the Sacraments to none but the truly godly though its true that none else should require them 2. That we must give them to those that profess saving faith though they have it not For it is the Foundation of all humane Converse that we give credit to mens words when we have no just cause to dis-credit them especially in matters out of our reach and within theirs such as are the secrets of their own hearts We must therefore take their Profession unless it be contradicted by such palpable Evidences as Nullifieth it or maketh it invalid 3. That we have no other grounds to proceed on but this and that on their grounds they must profane Gods Ordinance every time they mistake in the judgement of Charity and apply it to ungodly men But not so on ours who must apply it to Professors And therefore they have no warrant to make any further scrutiny into the sincerity of a mans grace as sine qua non to their administration of the Sacrament seeing that a Verbal profession not evidently contradicted and invalidated by words or life is the means of discovery by which we must be satisfied But yet I never dreamed that we must not require profession it self of saving faith and that as a probable sign of the thing professed but that we must look after another kind of faith And if Mr. Blake will not take up with bare profession of his dogmatical faith he will oft profane the Ordinance too For he knoweth not when it is in sincerity in any man And we know by their Ignorance that multitudes are without it He addeth my Confession That the Ignorance of this point hindered me long from administring the Lords Supper But he tels not what point it was Not that the ungodly might lawfully and rightfully claim it nor that I might lawfully give it to the professedly ungodly or to any that profess not saving faith it was no such point But that the Sacrament sealed not as from God that This or that man is a Believer or that he is actually pardoned but only sealeth the conditional promise with such application to the person as is first to be made by his own Receiving and therefore if there be an error and falshood it is committed only by himself and the Minister is not guilty nor the Ordinance wholly in vain And what 's this to the advantage of Mr. Blake's Cause Yet he addeth And I confess as ingeniously that if he can work me to this opinion I am resolved for present to baptize no Infant as being unable to know the Parents faith to justification Answ. 1. But if you be brought to my opinion this Resolution will be changed 2. Are you resolved never to baptize more on the grounds that the Church of Christ hath alwayes baptized on 3. I here propound to you and the world the Reasons of my opinion And then I shall leave to the judgement of wiser men then my self whether your rejection of this opinion be a greater disgrace to it or to you 4. What if you cannot know the Parents justifying faith Will it follow that you may not know a Profession of it 5. You would do the world a curtesie to tell them by what means you are more certain of the sincerity of a Dogmatical Faith than we can be of a Justifying Faith Or will you upon consideration resolve yet never to baptize any more not administer the Lords Supper because you can never be certain that your Receivers have a Dogmatical Faith The next place where I am cited against my self is pag. 150. because I speak of Saints that shall not be saved Answ. And so I do still But yet I still say that Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiore significato And therefore the words Saints Believers c. must ordinarily be understood of such as are justified where there is no limitation or special reason to the contrary The next place where I observe my self cited against my self is p. 158. Because I maintain that it is an Error in Mr. Tombes to say That the Covenant whereof baptism is the Seal is only the the absolute covenant made only to the Elect Therefore Mr. Blake infers And if men in the state of nature be in that covenant that baptism sealeth viz. the conditional Covenant then men in the state of nature and short of justifying faith have right to baptism To which I reply 1. I have shewed you at large how far men unsanctified are or are not in covenant with God and in what sense they have or have not right to baptism And yet must we still use the undistinguished terms as if I simply denyed without distinction Yea before you confess that you tell it abroad in your discourse that I say none have right to baptism but they that have saving faith and that you can hardly gain credit to your words The way to gain credit were to speak truer and specially in your discourse of other men behind their backs A Right by any promise or mortal grant from God to them I denied but I affirmed Hypocrites to be the rightfull objects of the Ministers Act or that we may lawfully give it them and that thus far they have such an improper right And yet still you would make me believe that I simply deny them right 2. Your Consequence here is wholly groundless It is one thing to say as I do That the conditional covenant is made to the non-Elect And another thing to say as you term it that they are in the covenant For that word is very ambiguous If your consequence be good from my Assertion then you may as well prove that Turks Jews and Heathen may have the Sacraments given them For I affirm that the conditional Covenant is made to them 3. The thing that I maintain against Mr. Tombes is that the Sacrament sealeth not only the absolute Promise to the Elect but the conditional Promise and
this in two sorts 1. To true Believers who perform the condition God sealeth effectually obliging himself Actually and confirming their faith 2. The same conditional promise he sealeth to intruding Hypocrites but not so as to oblige himself to them but conditionally still as the promise it self doth Because the conditional promise giveth not actual right or enduceth not on the Promiser an actual obligation till the condition be performed which is with true believers and no others I desire both Mr. Tombes and you to know my meaning when I so plainly express it before you trouble your selves and others in contradicting it Another supposed Contradiction is pag. 159. recited He argued That faith on which Simon Magus was baptized is that which admitteth to Baptism But Simons faith fell short of saving and justifying To this Mr. Blake saâ—th I give a sudden answer viz. concedo totum sed de sideratur conclusio And he adds He is certainly much to seek both in syllogism and common reason that could not infer and could not know that I left the Reader to infer that therefore A Faith that is short of justifying entitles to baptism and so I have the whole in question yielded and that which was once said would make foul work in the Church if granted To this I reply 1. I shall not presume to say that you are much to seek either in Syllogism or common reason â—ut I think it meet to say that I pity the world and especially hasty inconsiderate Readers that must be troubled and abused by their writtings that understand not what they speak to I pray peruse your Arment again and see whether any more will follow than this Therefore a faith short of saving or justifying admitteth to baptism And this I granted taking Simons faith to be an assent conjunct with a profession of saving faith as most Interpreters do that I have seen expounding he believed by be professed to believe and had some convâ—ction But was the word entitled in your Argument And might I not well say desideratur conclusio The question which you would have concluded was that which now you conclude It entitleth to Baptism And then there is more in your Conclusion than in your Premisses Admitting is not Entitling I granted you oft before that we may Admit an Hypocrite yea a stark Infidel if professing true faith he require the Sacrament But I denyed that in strict or proper sense they had Title to it or might demand it I may justly and necessarily give if required what another unjustly requireth yet upon this gross oversight of my obvious sense Mr. Blake goes away as with a full concession of his Cause And no doubt in some mens eyes hath carried it His two Arguments against me from my own words p. 166. I have answered before The next touch of this nature I find pag. 167. Profession being a good step in the way to sincerity which a man would think Mr. Baxter would not dislike who so far speaks the mind of Christ towards men that if they will come but only to a visible Profession he will not deny them admittance there because they intend to go no further but will let them come as near as they will Repl. And so I confidently say still And what 's this to your Cause at all The next that I observe are cited pag. 184. and 186. In the latter 188. he reciteth a passage of mine in the Saints Rest where I say that the meer sober-professing to repent and believe in Christ is a sufficient Evidence of their Interest to Church-membership coram Ecclesiâ and admittance thereto by Baptism Upon which Mr. Blake assumeth What have I spoke more than here is said and did I ever speak with more and higher Confidence I say that a faith which is short of justifying gives title to Baptism And he saith such gives sufficient Interest to Church-membership and consequently admittance to Baptism Repl. I must needs say that it is to be lamented that Passion or Inconsiderateness should carry you to such evident untruths Did ever I say that such a faith gives evidence Did I there once mention such a faith Did I not expresly say A sober Professing to repent and believe in Christ. And did you not set these words before your Readers eyes And yet will you in the next words perswade him that I talk of a faith short of justifying Did you think men would take no heed what they read It is the Profession of true faith and Repentance that I spake of and not your faith that is short of it which came not into my thoughts This dealing is not like to edifie though with some it may be effectual to mislead Yet upon this abuse you ground a triumph adding So that if my doctrine herein be loose the Reader will hardly find his to be fast and it hears not well to play fast and loose It was loose ground that these words were built on Pag. 184. Another Confutation of my self is thus expressed I desire Mr. Baxter to tell us how he hath mended the matter and provided for the honor and lustre of the Christian Name or made up at all the gap of which he speaks He sayes the Church is bound to baptize as largely as I say men have Right to Baptism Repl. Dear Brother it is not well that your pages should contain so many such untruths I would we had never medled with controversie if it cannot be managed without such guilt You say that a Dogmatical faith entitles to Baptism I say we ought not to Baptize men without the Profession of a saving faith Is this the same with yours or as large Is it all one to baptize them that will profess that they are willing to have Christ as he is offered in the Gospel and them that will profess no such willingness at all Why do you expect that your Readers should believe your so frequent and evident mis-reports Your next words also are untrue that I refuse none that you receive if you did practise according to your doctrine and that where you say they have Right I say we are bound to baptize them without Right A double untruth First It is not the same persons that we speak of Secondly I distinguished of Right and told you that if you will call that Right to another which results from the command to me to baptize him if he demand it such Right he hath You next add How will this make Christianity look with any better face how much will Worcester-shire Congregations where this is received exceed other Congregations where unanimously it is denyed Repl. Divers of your flings at the Worcester-shire Congregations might have been spared without the least dishonor to your prudence justice charity or piety If you have a mind to be the Accuser of any Churches of Christ you should descend to particulars and deal with such people and in such cases that you know and not print untruths of such
their seed which Coram Deo will warrant them to require and receive them Prop. 2. God hath not commanded or allowed any that have not saving faith to seek or receive the Sacraments in that condition but hath made it the order of their Duty first to Repent and Believe and then to seek and receive the Sacraments These two Propositions I shall now briefly but sufficiently prove The first hath in it three parts 1. That God hath not made any Deed of Gift of Sacraments or right to Sacraments to any that are short of saving Faith save the seed of the faithful 2. That therefore such have no title to Sacraments Coram Deo that can properly be so called 3. That therefore they cannot lawfully Claim and Receive them though if they claim them we may lawfully Administer them To avoid confusion I shall take these distinctly 1. That God hath made no Promise or Deed of Gift of Sacraments or Right to them to any that are short of saving faith or on any lower Condition than saving Faith I prove Arg. 1. There is none such to be found in Scripture Therefore God hath made none such We have long expected the production of any such Gift or Promise and yet none is produced Which is likely would have been if it could have been found And if it be not in Scripture it is nowhere Arg. 2. If the Promise or grant of Right to Sacraments be made on any Condition besides saving faith then 1. either on the Condition of the Profession of that Faith 2. or on the Condition of a real inferiour faith or 3. on Condition of the Profession of that inferiour faith But none of these three Ergo The Enumeration will be acknowledged sufficient by them that we have now to deal with And 1. That the bare profession of saving Faith is never made the condition of any Promise or Deed of Gift by which a Title to Baptism is conveyed appeareth 1. In that none such are found in all the Scripture God nowhere saith If thou wilt but profess or say thâ—t thou believest thou shalt be baptized or have Right to Sacraments though the Church must administer them on that Profession 2. Else God should command a man to lye or justifie him in it and make a lye the condition of his mercies Though every duty be not the condition of Justification yet every such condition is a duty and every duty is commanded and God doth not Command any man to lye or to profess to be what he is not or do what he doth not or have what he hath not Much less will he make this the condition of his promises Object God commandeth both Believing and Profession therefore Profession is part of their duty and their sin is not that they Profess but that they do not Believe Answ. But God so connexeth these duties together that the later is a sin and no duty if it keep not its place and be performed without the former If a man tell a lye by speaking any good which he never thought its true that God would have had him both think it and speak it and then it would have been no lye but he would not have him speak it before he think it for then its a lye And you cannot say that his sin is only in not thinking it and not in speaking it which was part of his duty For it was both his sin Not to think it and to speak it when he did not think it and speâ—king it was not his duty save upon presupposal that he think it or it was not in any other order to be performed The same is here the case between Believing and professing to Believe 3. God maketh nothing the matter of Duty or the Condition of his Gifts but what hath some moral worth in it which may shew it fit to be well pleasing to him But the bare verbal Profession of that which is not in the heart hath no such Moral worth in it as may make it pleasing in his eyes Ergo 2. And then for an Inferiour Faith that this is not the condition of Gods Promise I have fully proved in another Disputation Moreover 1. No such promise can be produced out of the Word of God If it could its lâ—ke we should have had it ere now 2. The promises are expresly made on the condition of saving faith therefore not of any other Of this more in the following Arguments Only here I add that as to the Administration of Seals no man can know the sincerity or reality of an inferior kind of Faith any more than of a saving Faith 3. And then for the third viz. The Profession of a Dogmatical or other inferior Faith it can be no condition 1. Because the faith it self professed is none therefore the profession of it iâ— none 2. The profession of a saving faith is none Much less of a lower faith Observe in all this that when I mention a Dogmatical Faith I take it in Mr. Blake's sense and the sense that its commonly taken in viz. for an assent that comes short of that which justifieth and not as some of the Ancients did who called justifying Faith by the name of Dogmatical Faith as dist not from Miraculous Faith because they ordinarily placed Justifying Faith in Assent So Cyril and John Hierosol Cateches 5. pag. mihi 43. distinguisheth Faith into Dâ—gmatical which is saving and into that which is of Grace by which Miracles are wrought He means by Grace the extraordinary Gift of the Spirit And so some Protestants too Legâ— D. Alard Vaek Comment in Symbol Apost Proleg Cap. 5. pag. 20.21 Argum. 3. It is one and the same Covenant Testament or Deed of Gift by which God bestoweth Christ and Right to Sacraments and that on the same conditions But the Covenant or Testament bestoweth himself only on the condition of saving Faith Therefore it bestoweth right to Sacraments only on condition of saving Faith That there is any Covenant distinct from that one Covenant of Grace Mr. Blake disowneth as a fancy that never entred into his thoughts pag. 125. That this one Covenant or Testament giveth Right to Christ and to Sacraments upon the condition of one and the same faith is evident 1. Because the word distinguisheth not therefore in this case we may not distinguish It offereth Christ and Sacraments to men on these terms if they will believe but it doth not give us the least hint that by believing is meant two several sorts of faith whereof one is of necessity to right in Christ the other to right to Sacraments Mr. Blake that so abhorreth the imputing of equivocal terms to the Scripture I hope will not feign them to speak so equivocally If the Word had ever said It is such a kind of faith that is the condition of Right to Christ and such a different kind of Faith that is the condition of Right to Sacraments then we might have warrantably so distinguished our selves
while he was destitute of the faith which by his action was professed Receiving the Sacrament as a Sacrament is an actual profession oâ— faith And you can never prove that Christ commanded Juda to lye by professing the faith which he had not but only that he commanded him at once to Believe and thus profess it He that will have men compelled to come in to the Church intendeth that they must bring a wedding garment or else they shall hear how camest thou hither You apprehend John Timpsons words to be apposite which imply a contradiction or touch not the point If the right Object be really believed even that which is the full Object of saving faith that very belief is saving and proveth the holiness of the person To the Twelfth I answer General and special Grace I resolvedly maintain But when will you prove that it is a part of General Grace to have a proper Title given by God to the Sacraments which seal up the pardon of sin actually where there is such Title To have the universal conditional promise or covenant ex parte Dei enacted and promulgate and offered the world with many incitements to entertain it is General Grace But so is not either our actual heart-covenanting the Remission of our sin nor such a proper Title to the sign of both When you tell us of the Worlds Potential and the visible Churches actual Interest in General Grace you give us pardon the truth a meer sound of words that signifie nothing or nothing to purpose You cannot call it General Grace Objectively as if the Saints had a particular Objective Grace the rest a General For Generals exist not but in the individuals It is therefore the General conditional promise or gift which you must mean by General Grace This is to the world without indeed but an offer But is it any more to any of the unbelievers or unregenerate within what can be the meaning of an actual Interest in a conditional promise which all the hearers have not and yet is short of the true actual Interest of them that perform the condition I feel no substance in this notion nor see any light in it I confess there is a certain possession that one such man may have more then others but as that is nothing to proper Title so it is not the thing that Sacraments are to seal I have not Mr. Hudsons book now by me but your solution by the two sives had need of some sifting It s one thing to ask what is the end of Sacraments quoad intentionem praecepti and another thing to tell what eventually they produce I do not believe that the sive that brings men into a state of Grace is in the hands of God only so as if he used not Ministers thereto Ministers are said in Scripture to convert and heal and deliver and save men To your 13th and 14th and last I answer That we easily confess that the covenant under the new Testament is better than the old but this makes nothing for you nor do you prove that it doth the force of the first section of your book as it may be the matter of an Objection I have answered before As to your Authorities I say 1. Mr. Vines saith nothing which proveth any approbation of your opinion whether Mr. Burgess do I leave to himself for I know not certainly All that I know of since Dr. Ward is Mr. Blake Mr. Humphrey and John Timpson and John Timpson Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Blake Your 3d and 4th Sections need no more answer I think than what is already given You needed not these pillars to support that point which is the design of your Treatise To these I find you add another the greatest of all pag. 611. which you say sinks deep into you but if reason will do it I will pluck it up by the roots partly by desiring you to peruse what I have twice or thrice before answered to it and partly by adding as followeth That 1. If a man by mistaken doubtings shall keep himself away from a Sacrament that doth not destroy his Title to it or the Grace signified nor is it any ones fault but his own I therefore deny your Minor It is not this doctrine that cuts off doubting Christians from the Sacrament but themselves that do culpably withdraw To your Prosyllogism I deny the Major that doctrine which concludes it sin in the doubtful Christian to Receive doth not cut him off For it concludeth it not his sin to Receive in it self but to Receive doubtingly so that it is not Receiving but Doubting that is properly his sin and withall we say that it is his Duty to Receive and his greater Sin not to Receive than to Receive And though an erring Conscience doth alwaies ensnare and so create a necessity of sinning which way soever we go till it be rectified yet it s a greater sin to trespass against a plain precept than against an erring Conscience in many cases But the main stress lyeth on your proof which is from Rom. 14.23 Whatsoever is not of faith is sin But I could wish you would consider it better before you press home that Text to the same sence against all other duties as you do against this lest you leave God but little service from the Church 1. It is one thing to doubt about indifferent matters such as Paul speaks of as eating c. For there he is condemned if he eat because he is sure it is lawful to forbear but not sure that it is lawful to eat But press not this upon us in case of necessary duty If God command me to pray praise or communicate my doubt will not justifie my forbearance and though it entangle me in sin it cannot disoblige me from duty but I shall sin more if I forbear You say If it be sin for the unregenerate to Receive then cannot the doubting Christian be perswaded and consequently sinneth Ans. True but that 's not long of the doctrine but of his error and it is the case of all practical errors which will not therefore justifie you in blaming the doctrine it s the unavoidable effect of an erring Conscience And again I say he sinneth more in forbearing Whereas you conclude this Argument to be convincing I have told you before why it convinceth not me but to your selves I would ask whether it do not also convince you that your own doctrine is as unsufferable For I am past doubt that not only most Christians but even most doubting Christians have more knowledge that they have true justifying faith than the rest of the world have that they have true Dogmatical faith Though the wicked doubt less because they believe and regard it less yet indeed they have not only far more cause to doubt of the truth of their Dogmatical faith but have less true knowledge of it At least many of them it s thus with when so many true Christians do as much
doubt of their Dogmatical faith as of any Now what will you do with all these If you take their faith it self though common to be their Title then they must according to you all keep a way while they doubt of it And if it be but the verbal profession of that Dogmatical faith that is their Title before God and their own Conscience then any infidel may make himself a Title at pleasure by a lye and the bare opus operatum of speaking the words which he never believed but derideth the sence while he uttereth the terms As you will save your own Communicants from condemning themselves then for want of Assurance of their Lower faith so shall you direct us to do by ours I will only add this Question What Description must that man give of the faith short of Justifying which entitles to Baptism who takes Justifying faith it self to lie but in Assent You know my meaning It will be certainly another kinde of faith than Mr. Blake describeth that such a man must require I had thought I had done with you at this time and this day I received a Book of Mr. Prins writing containing the fruit of your Doctrine and therein I finde a passage of yours cited from pag. 125. which makes me think it may deserve further consideration than I thought to have taken of it You say Giving and Receiving being Relata all those Texts that prove it the duty of any to Receive the Sacrament doth eo nomine oblige the Minister to deliver it to them or admit them because posito uno Relatorum ponitur alterum Answ. Must Logick do the deed at last If so it will give us leave to distinguish between Relata secundùm dici secundùm esse simplices duplices relationes c. Ponitur autem hoc unum Relatorum vel in esse vel in debito If you speak of the former then you know 1. that our Giving is not effectual Giving but Offering when it goes before Receiving and 2. that as scibile may be sine scientiâ as existent so Offering may be without Receiving though not Receiving in our present sense without Offering therefore one of these may be put without the other But I suppose it is Debitum offerendi recipiendi which you think are thus related But 1. here the debitum offerendi goes first and the debitum recipiendi comes after and is but conditional and not actual till the very act of oblation You may be bound to Offer your people the Sacrament and not perform your duty they are not bound to Receive it when you are bound to Offer it but only on condition or supposition that you actually do Offer it so that it is not your duty and theirs that are connexed as Relata else they should be bound to Receive that which is not offered them for you may neglect your duty Nor is it your actual Offering and their actual Receiving that are inseparably connexed as perfect Relates for you may offer it when it shall be refused But you 'l say At least the thing intended stands good that posito recipiendi debito ponitur etiam debitum offerendi I answer Not alwaies so neither unless you take the Duty of Reception to be actual and absolute and not conditional For you may be bound to Receive on supposition that I offer both this and many other things which I am not bound to offer Much less am I eo nomine as you strongly say obliged to deliver it to you You may be obliged to give me Thanks supposing I bestow a Benefit on you and your thanks hath relation to my Benefit and yet I do not yet understand that I am eo nomine obliged to give you that Benefit because you must be thankful if I do Your Obligation to receive is plainly consequential and hypothetical supposing I actually offer it and that cannot so necessarily infer the duty of Offering For I make little doubt to prove that in many Cases when the Minister sinneth in his Offer it is yet the Peoples duty to receive it if he do offer it The Scribes and Pharisees might unjustly usurp the Chair of Moses and yet it may be the peoples duty to hear them The Priests may usurp their place and yet the cleansed Leper may be bound to shew himself to them Nero may sin by asking Tribute when it may be my duty to give it him if he ask it If Mr. Prin had thought that your Argument would justifie a Thief in taking his purse by the high way I do not think he would have cited it Giving and Taking here are Relatives too If a Thief demand your purse resolving to kill you if you deny it it may be your duty to Give it to save your life when in my opinion it is not eo nomine his duty to Demand or Take it Well! but this is not the chief part of my answer to you If you had laid better grounds for it and well limited it I might well grant you that when the People are bound to Receive it implyeth the Ministers duty to offer it them But then you must take duty as you finde it entirely at least essentially and you must not cut off a piece of a duty yea leave out the essentials and turn it into a sin God commandeth people first to Repent and Believe and then to profess it by words and sacramental actions and therewith receive the seals of his special grace This is your Duty Perform your duty so far as is antecedent to mine and I shall confess that mine will follow and I must offer you the Sacraments But if you will refuse to repent or Believe or to profess that you do so in a credible sort or will by word or life profess that you do not so and yet will demand the Sacrament you do not your duty and so I am not obliged Prove that it is a mans duty to receive the Sacraments without Faith and Repentance yea or a credible Profession of them or to profess by that Reception that he Takes Christ and Believeth in him when it is a lie and then you say somewhat All men are bound mediately to receive the Sacrament that is first to seek after the Word and then to hear it and then to believe and repent and then to seek the Sacraments but it followeth not that they may do the last first and receive before they repent Moreover as the Receiver is bound ad ordinem modum and not simply and any how to receive so I am bound ad ordinom modum and not any how to give And therefore I must first know my call to it as a Pastor and I must do my best to help the people to a due preparation and I must do it Decently in Order and to Edification and the miss of one of these may turn the duty into a sin I am not therefore of your opinion as you next express it that there is as
Church For we are Members of his Body and of his flesh and of his bones See also Ephes. 4 12 13 14 15 16. 1 Cor. 12.12 13 26 27. For as the Body is One and hath many members and all the members of that one Body being many are one Body so also is Christ. For by One spirit we are all baptized into one Body And whether one member suffer all the members suffer with it or one member be honoured all the members necessary to say somewhat to the point which I shall do with as much brevity as I can without injury to the Cause Because here are several Titles commonly given to unsound Professors which the Question doth take in and we cannot speak to them all at once I shall begin at the first and then the rest may easily be dispatcht yea the most that needs to be said concerning them will fall in in order to the handling of the first But what shall we do for a Judge or Rule for the determining of our Controversie Custom is the Master of Language and if any one will pretend to so much reason as to tell the signification of words from the bare Etymologie contrary to Customs interpretation the world will but laugh at him For how well soever he plaies his part he will but tell us how such words should be used and not how they are used and therefore he will help us to the right understanding of no mans words or writings thereby It s Custom therefore and not Etymologie that we must be judged by But Custom is here double-tongued The world is not agreed of the sense of Analoga nor well of aequivocals and univocals I must crave of the Reader that he will suppose here what I have already written about these terms to Dr. Kendall that I need not to repeat what is there The Controversie though but nominal is old between the Papists and the Protestants and the Protestants have commonly maintained all along since the Reformation that Hypocrites or meer Professors are but Aequivocally called Members of the Church The Papists have resisted them in this and yet been forced in the opposition to cut the throat of their own Cause Though it be the Defence of the old Protestant Cause here that is finally my Business yet it is the late opposition made against it by two Protestant Divines that is the occasion of my undertaking to wit Mr. Blake and since him Mr. Humphrey And yet with them I need not have much ado For if we are not agreed we know not well the state of our difference and therefore have happily made our selves uncapable of following it far by Controversie as being in the dark In my writing to Mr. Blake I use to say that such men are Church-members Christians Saints c. but Equivocally or Analogically as being willing to avoid all needless Controversie about words but sometime supposing that Assertion I use the common language of the Protestants and mention equivocally only I do not remember that Mr. Blake doth affirm that such men and true Believers are univocally called Church-members Covenanters Christians c. nor yet that he denieth it so that I know not what he is for but what he is against I partly know For the term Equivocal here he tells us that he abhors But he would take it as tolerable if I had used the term Analogical And if that might reconcile us it is but his more heedfull reading of my words and he will finde that I do ordinarily use it As pag. 62. lin 4 5. It is an imperfect Consent Analogically or Equivocally called Covenanting c. And after at the bottom of the page and therefore such are said as to the Faith Consent and Covenant so required but Equivocally or Analogically to Consent Covenant or Believe c. And pag. 64. lin 6 7. these men in proper strict sense are no true Christians but Analogically only And pag. 65. As he is Equivocally or Analogically a Beleiver or Christian so I yeild he is a Member of the visible Church c. These and other such places may satisfie Mr. Blake if the term Analogical will satisfie him Well! but yet the term Equivocal he abhors If so then he must either judge that they are Univocally called Church-members Saints c. or else that there is a third between Univocal and Equivocal The former he speaks not out the later I suppose he knoweth is denied by many Philosophers with so much reason as that it deserveth his pains for a better proof It s like he hath read it inter leges Aequivocorum in the Logicks commonly read in the Schools that Omne Analogum est Aequivocum as Fascic Log. pag. 21. alii It s agreed on that Vnivoca vel Synonyma are sometimes taken so strictly for Paronyma and sometime so largely as to comprehend the paronyma si careant homonymia and thus it is that we have to do with the term Burgersdicius divideth Genus in synonymum sive univocum homonymum sive aequivocum and makes all that is spoken inequaliter de speciebus suis to be Genus aequivocum But then he meaneth not by inaequaliter that meer inequality in the Degree of Excellency in the several species on which some Scotists affirm that Animal is Genus Analogum quoad hominem brutum because man is prastantius animal but cùm una species ab alterâ pendet and so the Genus doth magis uni alteri minus convenire aut uni mediatè alteri per alterum And so he concludeth that Ens si genus sit aequivocum genus est quia substantia magis est Ens quam Accidens imò Accidens non est Ens nisi quia quatenas pendet a substantia Yet this which is by the Schoolmen called Analogum attributionis is as like to belong to Univocals as any Analogum is as the same Author saith pag. 155. Omnium longissimè à synonymis absunt homonyma a casu quaeque causam homonymiae habent in nobis propiùs ad synonymorum naturam accedunt tropica ac imprimis analoga at omnium proximè quae ambigua sunt ob inaequalem attributionem And yet these doth he there again reckon among the homonyma or aquivoca dividing homonymie into that which is á Casu and that which is à Consilio and into that whole Reason is in nobis and whose Reason is in rebus among which this inaequalis attributionis is the highest which the School-men call Anologie For which Burgensdicius Keckerman and other of our Logicians with some contempt reject the School-mens doctrine of Analogae Scotus maintaineth that inter Vnivocat Aequivoca non datur medium in 1 Dist. 8. q. 2. For 1 Denominatives as divers of the Scotists shew at large and its past doubt are not media between them Nam licet non praedicentur univocè de suis subjectis quia de illis non praedicantur essentialiter sed denominative tamen sunt
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
Church which is no more for him than for me but only that it is the profession of a Dogmatical Faith and not the Faith it self that is necessary to give this Right But a man would think that if it be not enough for an evidence in our case of an Analogical Right Coram Ecclesiâ that a man subscribe the Covenant of God of which Mr. Blake pag. 143. then it can be no good evidence in his cause of a Right Coram Deo Ecclesiâ that a man subscribe or speak that which he never understood or if his Profession of Dogmatical Faith without the Faith itself be a good Title then the Profession of a justifying Faith without the Faith it self may so far serve turn as to justifie the Baptizing and to prohibite rebaptizing 4. And to Mr. Blakes censure which I will not censure as it deserves of the Major part by far of the Worcestershire combination as he speakes whether it be that he know them better than I which is unlikely when he professeth to conjecture on reports or whether I be more charitable or less rigorous in judging of mens sincerity or what ever else makes the difference of our censures I will be bold to say that I know not one person of all the Worcestershire combination as he calls them whom I know to be an unjustified unsanctified person that I can remember though I confess I have no small doubts and fears of many Nay more I have more hopes than fears I mean I rather think that they are truly Godly than that they are not of the far greatest part of them that I know even of many to one and more comparatively then I will now mention And whereas Mr. Blake doth instead of answering cast aside above twenty of my Arguments as not concerning him and so put them off with a wet finger I say that 's too easie a way of answering to satisfie me how ever it may do by those that are more easily satisfied and with a word I shall restore and reenforce them as with a word he puts them by It is one thing to ask whether the profession of justifying Faith be a duty to all that come to be Baptized Another whether it be so necessary that they ought not to come nor we to admit them without it and a third whether Baptism without it be a Nullity Mr. Blakes general assertion did in the proper sence express the first And thereupon because I took his words as he spoke them he better expoundeth them and confesseth that justifying Faith is a duty prerequisite to Baptism but not such a duty without which Baptism is Null or we may not Baptize and therefore he puts off above twenty Arguments at once and saith that they make nothing against him But I restore them all or most at once though one is enough by telling him that they prove that the profession of a Faith that is justifying must be expected by the Church and found in all that are admitted to Baptism and that none ought to be Baptized upon the profession of any lower Faith This they prove and this is the controversie In conclusion I will add but these two things and I should think such two might serve the turn 1. Consider when the Right that I denyed is a Promise-right whether Mr. Blake after all his pains do not yield up the cause when he expresly saith pag. 124. So that I conceit no promise of these ordinances made to such a faith but an actual investiture of every such believer in them What means this if it yield not the cause and unsay not the rest if no promise then no Right by promise and I seek no more What is the actual investiture but actual Baptizing and Receiving the Lords Supper and he knows that I did not deny that they actually received it 2. Me thinks Mr. Blake and my Reverend Brethren of his minde that marvail at my maintaining of this cause should bear some reverence to Augustine who so diligently defendeth it Besides what he saith in Enchirid. ad Laurent cap. 67 68. he hath a well known treatise purposely on this very subject or on that doth not considerably differ There were some voluptuous persons especially at Rome that kept concubines and yet professed to be Believers and would have been baptized but would not yet put away their concubines whereupon when the Ministers denyed them baptism some lay-men that desired the increase of the Church and misunderstood the doctrine of justification by faith only did plead that because by faith only we are justified and works are to follow as the fruits of faith therefore these persons upon their believing might be baptized and afterward they should be dealt with for the reforming of their lives Whereupon Augustine writes that Treatise de fide operibus to prove the contrary that they cannot be justified or saved by any faith but that which works by love and that they must not be baptized till they actually put away their Concubines and other the like sins and promise also to forsake them for the future so that as it was not any presbyters but lay-men that raised this doubt so both they and Agustine seem agreed that the same faith that is saving is requisite to baptism or as to the Church the Profession of it And therefore Austin thus repeats the occasion in his Retractions lib. 2. cap. 38. pag. Edit Paris Missa sunt mihi nonnulla quae ità distinguerent à bonis operibus Christianorum fidem ut sine hâc non posse sine illis autem perveniri suaderetur ad aeternam vitam Quibus respondens librum scripsi cujus nomen est de Fide Operibus in quo disputavi non solùm quemadmodum vivere debeant gratiâ Dei regenerati verùm etiam quales ad lavacrum regenerationis admitti If I cited but a line or leaf you might say I dismembered it and left behind me the sence but when the whole book is to this very purpose no such thing can be said see especially cap. 21. so that if I err I have no worse a man then Augustine to lead me the way As for Mr. Blak's impotent accusations of my owning the cause of the Papists against the Protestant cause in the matter of Justification because I misliked the by extream opinions of some men as if all had agreed in these opinions or the Protestant difference with the Papists in the matter of Justification did lye either only or principally in these I look upon it as such dealing as must be expected from angry men and as Children of the same Father do sometime use against one another when they fall out It was doubtless my sin that I was no more cancelor◠of provoking him as it is his to be carryed to such injustice by his passions as that and many other passages do contain But I am confident he forgiveth me and I am certain I forgive him and I am perswaded
Eternity The latter is not properly in God at all For he changeth not his minde nor Remitteth any Punishing Purpose or secret Resolution or thoughts which he had before and if he did that would not dissolve the Guilt that is the obligation to Punishment without an outgoing word from God But yet after the manner of weak man this last sort of Mental Pardon may from the Effect to the Affect be ascribed Denominatively to God But then as it is but Denominatively so that Denomination must then begin when the Law of Grace or Promise doth Pardon and Absolve for then only doth the ground of that Denomination begin though nothing Real do begin in God And it is worth the noting also how angerly this man doth tell us that neither Dr. Twiss nor any that ever was taught or Catechized understandingly in the Church will deny or is ignorant of this kinde of Pardon or Justification in Law-sense which we maintain And yet that Mr. Blake will not be perswaded of any such thing to this day but disputeth confidently against that which we are so chidden by Mr. Robertson for imagining that any well Catechized will deny Again tell me what a man should do to be of every learned good mans minde or to escape their censures And as these Brethren deal in the Press so do some others privately by words and Manuscripts The last week I received a creeping Paper against my directions for Peace of Conscience written by a Minister about the midway between Mr. Blake and me Though a Neighbour I know not that I ever heard his name before but once about 16 years ago who with the spirit and pen of Mr. Robertson and his like doth furiously fall on me to conjure out of me the Devil of Pelagianism because I say to doubting souls that If Christ be not yet theirs he maybe when they will or they may have him when they will whereupon to his Councils and Fathers he goes against Free-will This is a Minister of the Gospel and yet knows not that this is a Truth that almost all the world of Christians are agreed on and that Austine purposely defendeth and if it be not true what a case is the world in And his Reproaches are cast in the face of the Scripture that saith the same Whoever will let him take the water of Life freely Rev. 22.17 And Dr. Twiss maintains it at large that velle Credere is Credere but doubtless velle Christum oblatum is a great act of saving Faith And this man might read that I add withall as Austine doth that Though whoever will have Christ as offered may have him yet no man will so have him but by the work of special Grace But is it not a sad case when the Preachers of the Gospel shall defame and reproach the very substance of the Gospel as zealously as if mens salvation lay upon it I have given you now I think reasons enough to excuse me from wording it with such inconsiderate men To which I will add one other I am conscious of so much frailty in my self that I am likely to be drawn also to injure some of them And also I am not able to speak so cautelously but some words will be very liable to misunderstanding on which they may plausibly fasten their accusations To give you one instance In the Preface to my Confession I noted a sort of empty men that will not speak to men nor give them any reasons to convince them but only secretly behind their backs will carry it abroad that such or such a man is erroneous half an Arminian a dangerous man and if they speak to us we shall hear but these general charges of Error To these I said I might expect they should be more Judicious studied impartial illuminate sincere or at lest the chief of these before I should value their bare Judgements and Censures without their Reasons professing withall that as I doubted not but there are multitudes of Labourers in Gods harvest with whom in these respects I am unworthy to be named so the Judgement of these I would value that is so far as to suspect anything which they are against and silence it at least till Evidence be very cogent So that I never mentioned the Qualifications of men that write or dispute against me but only of those that look I should be swayed by their Censures without Arguments This was my very mind of which I desire you to observe the words themselves But no where doth Dr. Owen and Mr. Blake so take me up as here mistakingly supposing that I spoke of those that should Write or Argue against me and that I require all these Qualifications in them No I will hear Scripture and Reason from a Childe but I will not be swayed by the Judgement and Censures of a Childe Yet here the one of them talks of the terrible conditions that I impose upon my Answerer and the other Mr. Blake comes on with intimations as if my words implyed that I take my self for more judicious experienced holy c. than all those from whom I manifest my dissent the Assembly and I know not how many feigning me do dissent from men even contrary to my profession These answers will seem as good to Readers that will not by collation make trial as if they were as good as any So will his citations out of the Fathers when among the several points in difference I desired one line from one Ancient to prove that his opinion was ever known to the ancient Church and for one of them the instrumental efficacy of Faith to Justification he doth perform it at large but how By a bare citation of Passages from others gathered up and that without the words and that only affirming that we are justified by Faith and not by Works So that if Mr. Blake bring testmonies of the Ancients sense that we are Justified by Faith and not by Works he will take these as testimonies that the Ancients speak for the Instrumental Efficiency of Faith in Justification And by such consequences he may make them say many things more that they never said indeed But we have shewed him a tertium another sense in which a man may be said to be justified by Faith without Works Sure I am that if I should maintain such a Justification by Faith without Works as many of those Fathers whom he quote's do assert in terms and sense even in the words before and after and in the places cited I should be more clamorously called a Papist than yet I have been at least there were more shew of reason for it Moreover the very naming of untrue Reports and Affirmations would be offensive to the guilty As pag. 664. he saith that I say Obedience is only the modification of Faith in the first act of Justification when I never spoke or thought such a thing but deny it to be existent as its distinct from Faith in that first act of
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