Reader
Apology Against the Exceptions of Black and Kendall · Richard Baxter

Apology Against the Exceptions of Black and Kendall, Section Baxter 39 – Section Blake 41

§. 39▪

R. B. BEfore I give a direct Reply to theſe words, I think it neceſſary that I I tell you, How farre I take Unregenerate men to be in Covenant with God, and how farre not: and that I alſo diſcover as farre as I can Mr. Blake's minde in this Point; that it may be known wherein the difference lieth.

The [Covenant] is ſometime taken for Gods part alone, ſometime for our part alone, ſometime for both conjunct, even for a mutual Covenanting. As it is taken for Gods act, it ſignifieth 1. Either ſome abſolute promiſe of God, made 1. Either to Chriſt concerning men, or on their behalf (and ſo the elect may be ſaid to be in Covenant before they are born, becauſe Chriſt hath a promiſe that they ſhall be ſaved, and the non-elect are in Covenant before they are born, becauſe Chriſt hath a promiſe of ſome good to them.) 2. Or to men themſelves: And that is either 1. Common, or 2. Peculiar to ſome. 1. Common: as the promiſe made to fallen mankinde that a Saviour ſhould be ſent to Redeem them. The promiſe made to the people of Iſrael that the Meſſiah ſhould be of them according to the …eſh, and perſonally live among them, and preach the Goſpel to them. The promiſe made to Noah and the world, that the earth ſhould no more be drowned with water: The promiſe of preaching the Goſpel to all Nations (which is common, though not abſolutely univerſal:) the promiſe of a Reſurrection to all the world, and that they ſhall be judged by Chriſt the Redeemer, and (at leaſt thoſe that heard the Goſpel) on the terms of the new Law, and not on the meer rigorous terms of the Law of entire nature: the promiſe of a fuller and clearer promulgation and explication of the Law of grace, when Chriſt ſhould come in the fleſh: the promiſe of a fuller meaſure of the Spirit to be poured out, for Miracles to confirm the Chriſtian Doctrine to the beholders, hearers and actors; that there ſhall be a Miniſtry Commiſſioned to Diſciple and Baptize all Nations, maintained to the end of the world (which gives Miniſters right and authority to Baptize them;) and if there be any other the like promiſe of the means neceſſarily anteceding faith. Thus farre many thouſands that are unregenerate, and non-elect, may be ſaid to be in Covenant, that is under theſe promiſes. 2. Some of theſe abſolute promiſes are peculiar to ſome: as to one Sex (though common as to that Sex) as the mans ſuperiority: to one Age: to one Degree in order of nativity (as to the elder brother to have ſome ſuperiority over the younger, Gen. 4.7.) to one Nation, as to the Iſraelites were made many peculiar promiſes; and thoſe before mentioned which I called common as to all Iſrael, were peculiar to them (ſome of them) in excluſion of other Nations. And ſome to particular perſons, good or bad: as for ſucceſs in battell, or other enterpriſes; for averſion of ſome threatned judgement; for the abating of ſome inflicted puniſhment; for ſome temporal or common bleſſing; of which ſort we finde many particular promiſes which God by ſome Prophet made with particular men. In all theſe reſpects I ſay wicked men have been under a promiſe, yea men not elect to ſalvation: and thus far they may be ſaid to be in Covenant with God. But this is but a lax and improper ſpeech, to ſay (ſuch are in Covenant) to be uſed now among Chriſtians that have uſed to give the name [Covenant] by an excellency, to another thing. Alſo now wicked men are not under peculiar perſonal promiſes of temporal things, as then they were, becauſe now there are no extraordinary Prophets, or other the like Meſſengers o… Revelations from God to make ſuch particular promiſes to men. (Yet I will not ſay God hath reſtrained himſelf from this, or cannot, or will not do it at all, or that no man hath ſuch Revelations; but only 1. That it is not uſual. 2. Nor is God engaged to do it.)

So for the abſolute promiſe of the firſt ſpecial grace (firſt faith and repentance) to be given to all the Elect (ſuppoſing that there is ſuch a promiſe:) this is made to none but the ungodly and unregenerate, though elect (unleſs you will ſay, it is made to Chriſt for them, or rather is a prediction of good eventually to be conferred on them.)

But though in all theſe reſpects wicked men are under a promiſe, yet it is none of all theſe that gives them right to Baptiſm. There is no queſtion of any but the laſt: and for that I have proved in my Appendix againſt Mr. Bedford, that it is not that Covenant that Baptiſm ſealeth, Whither I refer you to avoid Repe…i…ion: much more eaſie is it to prove, that it is not that bare promiſe that gives right to Baptiſm. For many are Pagans and Infidels to whom that promiſe belongs. So much for the Abſolute promiſe.

2. As for Conditional promiſes to man, they are either

1. Peculiar: as extraordinary promiſes of temporal bleſſings conditionally made to ſome particular perſons heretofore. Of theſe I ſay, as of the former: Wicked men may be under ſuch promiſes; but theſe give not right to Baptiſm.

2. Common: ſuch as are not made to this or that man more then others, but to all, at leaſt in the tenour of the grant, though it be not promulgate to all. Of this ſort 1. Some ſuppoſe certain promiſes to go before the great Law of grace. 2. But I yet know not of any but the Law of grace it ſelf, (anon to be deſcribed.) 1. Thoſe that do ſuppoſe ſome ſuch antecedaneous promiſe, are of two ſorts: 1. The Arminians and Jeſuites. 2. Such as Mr. Blake about Church-Ordinances. 1. The Jeſuites and Arminians ſpeak of two ſuch common promiſes. 1. One is of the giving of ſupernatural means of Revelation, to men, on condition of the right uſe of natural Revelation. As if God had promiſed to all Heathen and Infidels that never heard of Chriſt, that they ſhall have the Goſpel ſent them, if they will uſe the light of nature well, or will ſeek out for the Goſpel. 2. The other promiſe which they imagine is, that God will give ſupernatural or ſpecial grace (viz. the firſt grace of faith and repentance) to men, on condition they will uſe well their common grace and means. I know of no ſuch promiſe as either of theſe in Scripture (of which ſee Davenant in his Diſſertation of Univerſal Redemption.) When any Arminian will ſhew ſuch a promiſe in Scripture, we ſhall yield. But yet I will tell you how far I yield. 1. I yield that God doth actually give temporal bleſſings to wicked men: But this is no Covenant or promiſe. Yet it gives them a right to enjoy them de praeſenti while they do enjoy them; ſo that it is not ſound Doctrine of them that ſay, Wicked men have no right to the creature, in whatſoever they poſſeſs, and that they are but uſurpers. For if you ſee one naked in the ſtreet, and put him on a garment; he hath right to wear that and enjoy it, while you permit him: But yet becauſe you promiſe him nothing for the future, he is not certain a moment of the continuance of that right or poſſeſſion, for you may take it off him again when you will. So wicked men have right and poſſeſſion of Gods mercies by actual collation de praeſenti, but not by promiſe de futuro, or by ſuch proper donation, as gives them the full propriety (for ſo God uſeth not to part with the propriety of his creatures to any.) 2. I yield that God doth give to Heathens, who have but natural light, ſome helps which have a tendency to their further advancement, and doth appoint them certain means to be uſed for the obtaining of a higher light, and that he giveth them ſufficient encouragement to go on in the chearfull uſe of thoſe means, in poſſibilities and probabilities of ſucceſs; ſo that they are unexcuſable that uſe them not. Theſe Mr. Cotton cals half promiſes (as who knows but the Lord may do thus and thus? Pray therefore if perhaps the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee, &c.) But promiſes properly they are not. God hath thought meet to keep himſelf diſengaged from this ſort of men. 3. The very ſame I yield of men in the viſible Church uſing common grace, as well as they can: that is, that God hath appointed certain means which ſuch men are to uſe for the getting of ſpecial grace: that thoſe that periſh, do juſtly periſh, for not uſing thoſe means ſo well as they could, and ſo for not beleeving: that he hath given them ſufficient incouragement to uſe ſuch means by examples, experiences, the nature of the means, and ſome half promiſes of ſucceſs: but no promiſe properly ſo called. 4. I yield that he actually gives ſaving grace to wicked men: or elſe none could have it. But this they can plead no right to before they have it.

2. The ſecond ſort of promiſes before the great Covenant of grace, is feigned by Mr. Blake (and if there be any other that go that way, as ſome do, and that with ſome difference among themſelves:) and that is A promiſe of Church-priviledges upon condition of a faith not juſtifying or ſaving. Here ſome annex ſpecial grace to theſe Church-priviledges, and ſo fall into the Arminian ſtrain. So Dr. Ward againſt Mr. Gataker, doth make a common (not-juſtifying) faith, the condition of Baptiſm, and then that Baptiſm a means non ponenti obicem of the certain Juſtification of all the Baptized, and ſo, at leaſt, the infants of all common profeſſors, baptized, ſhould be certainly juſtified. But I finde not Mr. Blake any where owning this connexion of ſpecial grace, and efficacy of Baptiſm on ſuch: therefore I ſuppoſe it is but ſome common mercies that he ſuppoſeth this promiſe to make over to the Baptized. But I will enquire further into his opinion anon.

2. The common or general promiſe-conditional, which I acknowledge, is the new Law of grace, or of faith, wherein God promiſeth [to be our God, ſo we will take him for our God, and will be his people] and [to give us Chriſt and Life, if we will accept him as he is offered in the Goſpel] or [that he that repenteth and beleeveth, ſhall be juſtified and ſaved] and he that doth not ſhall be damned: Whereto is alſo annexed, the promiſe of temporal mercies, ſo far as they are good for us; as appurtenances to the main bleſſings of the Covenant. Now I will tell you how far wicked men are under this great promiſe or Covenant, 1. As it is a conditional promiſe on Gods part, or a Law of grace enacted conditionally giving Chriſt and Life to all men, ſo All men are under it, or the ſubjects of it: that is, All the whole world, as to the tenour of the Law of grace, following the meer enacting; and all that hear the Goſpel, as to the promulgation. 2. So as it hath a precept conjunct, requiring them to believe and repent for remiſſion and ſalvation, ſo all are under it, that hear it. 3. So are they as to the annexed threatning upon their unbelief and impenitency. 4. So as the Preachers of the Goſpel do by Commiſſion from Chriſt, apply all this to them, and intreat them by name to repent and believe, and offer them Chriſt and the other benefits of the Covenant, if they will repent and believe; ſo wicked men are ſtill under the promiſe or Covenant, as to the Nunciative offers and exhortations, which is ſomewhat more then a meer Promulgation of it as a Law. All theſe waies, or in theſe reſpects, I yield that wicked men, or unregenerate men, may be under promiſe, or Gods Covenant. But this is not ſtrictly to [be in Covenant:] nor is this it that the right of Baptiſm belongs to: For all this belongs not only to Pagans, but even to obſtinate Pagans that perſecute this Goſpel, and draw out the blood of thoſe that thus Preach it to them: whom I ſuppoſe, few Divines Judge meet ſubjects for Baptiſm.

And thus we have ſpoken of Gods act in the conditional promiſe, before the condition be performed by man, and ſo before Gods promiſe do actually conferre right to the ſinner. As for the act of Gods Covenant afterwards, I ſhall ſpeak of it anon.

2. Having ſaid thus much of Gods act of promiſe or Covenant, and ſeen how far the wicked may be ſaid to be under that promiſe or Covenant, we muſt next conſider of their own promiſe to God, or the act of Covenanting on their own part. Mans Covenanting with God, or his entring the Covenant of God propounded to him, is either 1. to be conſidered in reſpect of the efficient; 2. or of the object. As to the efficient, it is either 1. The act of the whole man▪ i.e. of minde and body: 2. Or of part only: and that 1. either of the minde alone: 2. or of the outward man alone. 2. Objectively conſidered, it is either 1. A true proper conſent agreeable to the formall object (or to the object in its abſolute neceſſary reſpects and nature.) 2. Or it is an imperfect conſent, analogically or equivocally called [Covenanting] when it is not ſuited to the formall nature of the object. This errour is 1. About the object ſimply in it ſelf conſidered. 2. About the object comparatively conſidered: as God compared with the creature. And both or either of theſe errours is 1. Either in the intellect: when it doth not underſtand the nature of the object, and Gods terms on which only he offers his bleſſings; or at leaſt doth not practically underſtand it, but ſpeculatively only. 2. Or of the Will: when it doth not really conſent to the object, and terms of God, though they be underſtood, at leaſt, ſpeculatively. 3. Or it is, both the errour of the underſtanding and the will.

Having thus neceſſarily diſtinguiſhed, I will lay down in theſe Concluſions, how far man is in Covenant with God as to his own act. 1. Man may oblige himſelf by Vows to particular duties, that are not of the ſubſtance of the Covenant, and yet be wicked. 2. Yea man may oblige himſelf to things indifferent, and ſome think to evil, as Jeptha, ſo far as to enſnare himſelf in a neceſſity of ſinning, whether he perform it or not. 3. That which God requireth of man on his part, as a neceſſary condition, to his right in the benefits promiſed by God, and that God may be, as it were, obliged actually to man, is the ſincere reſolved conſent of the Heart or Will. 4. Yet he requireth for ſeveral reaſons, that the external profeſſion of conſent be added, where there is capacity and opportunity. 5. God doth as abſolutely require to our participation of his bleſſings, and that his Covenant may be in force actually to give us right to them, and he, as it were, obliged to give us the things promiſed, that we underſtand the abſolutely neceſſary part of the object of our conſent, or acceptance; and that with a practical knowledge. 6. As abſolutely doth he require that we do really conſent according to that practical underſtanding. 7. It is eſſential to God as the object of mans faith, to be his ſupream Lord and Rector as Creator, and his ultimate end and chiefeſt good: and ſo muſt he be apprehended and willed by all that indeed take him for their God: as alſo to be perfect in Being, Wiſdom, Goodneſs and Power, and of perfect Veracity. 8. It is eſſential to Chriſt as the object of our faith, to be God-man, that in our nature hath Ranſomed us, by the Sacrifice of himſelf on the Croſs for us, and Died, and Roſe again, and is now Aſcended in Glory with the Father, and is Lord of us all, and will Judge according to his Word to Everlaſting Joy or Puniſhment. 9. It is eſſential to the object of our faith, as ſuch, to be conſidered comparatively. As that God be taken not only as our good, but our chief Good, to be preferred before every creature: that he be taken not only as our Lord, but as Sovereign Lord, to be obeyed before all other: that Chriſt be taken for our only Saviour, and for our Lord-Redeemer, to be alſo obeyed before all creatures; particularly before and againſt the devil, the fleſh, and the world. 10. Where theſe eſſentials are not in the apprehenſion of the object, there is not truly the conſent, or faith, or covenanting which God hath made the condition of his Promiſe; and therefore ſuch are ſaid (as to the Faith, Conſent and Covenant ſo required) but equivocally or analogically to Conſent, Covenant or Believe: when truly and properly it is to be ſaid, that they do not Conſent or Covenant. Conſent hath relation to the offer: and if it be not the offered thing that is conſented to but ſomewhat elſe under that name, then it is not indeed Conſent: for there is no Relate without its Correlate. Covenanting (in the preſent ſenſe) implies Gods propounded Covenant and terms. For our entring the Covenant, is not a Making of terms, but an Accepting of the terms made to our hands and tendered (with a command to accept them.) Now if we do not conſent to the ſame terms propounded, it is truly no Accepting, nor no Covenanting: For God never offered to enter into Covenant on ſuch terms, and that which was never offered, cannot be properly accepted; nor can we Covenant with God in a mutual Covenant, on terms contrary to thoſe which he propounded. The Civil Law ſaith, Ignorantis non eſt Conſenſus. A God that is inferiour to creatures in Rule, or in Goodneſs and Deſirableneſs, is not God indeed. And therefore he that takes God in this ſenſe for his God, takes but the Name of God, and not God himſelf, but an Idol of his brain. A Chriſt that is only a Juſtifier and not a King and Governour, is not the Chriſt that is offered us of God; and therefore no man is called to accept ſuch a Chriſt. To erre therefore about the very eſſence of the Object, as ſuch, is to null the Act, it can be no Conſent or Covenant or Acceptance truly at all, but equivocally only. 11. The ſame may be ſaid of counterfeit Covenanting, when it is only ore tenus, with the mouth and not the heart. 12. Yet may an oral counterfeit Covenanting oblige the party to the duty promiſed (in our caſe) though it give him no right to the benefit offered, nor is God as it were obliged to perform his Covenant to ſuch. 13. The like may be ſaid of the foreſaid equivocal erroneous Conſenting, Accepting, Covenanting. If the errour be through the fault of the man himſelf, his act may oblige himſelf, though God remain diſobliged, and though he have no right to the thing promiſed by God. Thus much I thought meet to ſay, for the opening of that branch of the Queſtion, How far men unregenerate may be in Covenant, as to their own act.

But the great Queſtion is yet behind, Whether theſe men be in Covenant with God, as to Gods actual engagement to them: ſo far as that Gods premiſe is in force for conveying actual right to them as to the promiſed bleſſings? and ſo whether it be a mutual Covenant, and both parties be actually obliged? And thus I ſay that wicked men are not in Covenant with God, that is; God is not in Covenant with them: Neither have they any right to the main bleſſings given by the Covenant, viz. Chriſt, Pardon, Juſtification, Adoption, Glory: Nor yet to the common bleſſings of this Covenant, for they are given by the ſame Covenant and on the ſame conditions as the ſpecial bleſſings: So that though they may have right to them at preſent on the ground of Gods preſent collation, or truſting them with them (as a ſervant hath in his Maſters ſtock) yet have they no right by Covenant: For it is Godlineſs that hath the promiſe of this life, and of that to come, as being the condition of both; and it is ſeeking firſt Gods Kingdom and Righteouſneſs, that is the condition on which other things ſhall be added to us. The ſame holds of Church-priviledges and Ordinances quoad poſſeſſionens not proper to the faithfull.

So that in the concluſion, I ſay, that though wicked men have many promiſes from God, eſpecially the great conditional promiſe of Life, if they will repent and believe; and though they are alſo obliged by their own imperfect, equivocal Covenanting with God; yet God remaineth ſtill unobliged to them, and they have no actual right to the benefits of his promiſe; becauſe they have not performed the condition of their firſt right, that is, have not Covenanted truly with God, or entred the Covenant which he propounded; having not conſented to his terms, nor accepted Chriſt and Life as offered in the Goſpel: And therefore it is the moſt proper language to ſay, that none but ſincere beleevers are in Covenant with God: For the reſt have but equivocally Covenanted with God, and God not actually engaged in Covenant with them (for while the condition is unperformed there is no actual obligation on the promiſes) and ſo it is no proper mutual Covenant. And conſequently theſe men in proper ſtrict ſenſe, are no true Chriſtians, but analogically only.

Yet becauſe we have no acceſs to their hearts, and therefore muſt judge of the heart by the profeſſion and outward ſignes, therefore we muſt judge theſe probably to Covenant with the heart, who do profeſs to do ſo with the tongue; and thoſe to Covenant entirely and without errour in the eſſentials, who profeſs ſo to do: and therefore we muſt judge them probably to be true Chriſtians, and truly godly men (till they retract that profeſſion by word or deed:) and therefore we muſt judge them probably to be truly in Covenant with God, and ſuch as God is, as it were, obliged to juſtifie: and therefore we muſt give them the name of Chriſtians, and men in Covenant with God: and therefore we muſt uſe them as Chriſtians in works of charity, and in Ordinances, and Church communion: and ſo muſt uſe their children as Chriſtians children. The warrant for this uſage and Judgement, I muſt deſire the Reader to take notice of, in what I have written to Mr Tombes Objections on 1 Cor. 7.14. and to Dr. Ward, and againſt Mr. Tombes Precurſor more fully: For to repeat all here again would be tedious and unneceſſary. When Chriſt ſaith to us, [If a Brother repent, forgive him] here by [Repenting] doth Chriſt mean plainly Repenting, or the profeſſion of it? No doubt, repenting it ſelf. Why, but how can we that know not the heart, know here when our Brother repenteth? Will Mr. Bl. ſay therefore that none is obliged to forgive? Rather we know that man muſt judge him to repent that profeſſeth ſo to do: and therefore forgive him that profeſſeth it. Not becauſe profeſſing was the aſſigned requiſite condition: but a ſign of that condition: and therefore we are to accept of no profeſſion, but what probably ſignifieth true repentance. For if we knew a man diſſembled, or jeered us in profeſſing repentance, we are not bound to do by him as a penitent. So God commandeth us to love and honour them that fear the Lord, that are faithfull, that love Chriſt, &c. But we know not who theſe be: Are we therefore diſobliged from loving and honouring them? Or will Mr. Bl. ſay that we muſt not honour them, leſt we miſtake and give that honour to one that hath no right to it? (as he ſaith about the Sacrament; herein joyning with Mr. Tombes.) Thoſe that profeſs to fear God and love him, we muſt love and honour as men that do fear and love him: yet in different degrees, as the ſignes of their graces are more or leſs propable. In ſome common profeſſing Chriſtians, we ſee but ſmall probability: yet dare we not exclude them from the Church, nor the number of true believers, as long as there is any probability: Others that are more judicious, zealous, diligent, and upright of life, we have far ſtronger probability of; and therefore love and honour them much more.

Mr. Blake therefore in my judgement had done better, if, with that moderate, Reverend, Godly man Mr. Stephen Marſhall, he had diſtinguiſhed between theſe two Queſtions, [Who are Chriſtians or Church-members?] and [Whom are we to judge ſuch and uſe as ſuch?] and to bring in the unregenerate in the later rank only.

Next we are to ſee what is Mr. Blakes judgement herein, that we may not argue againſt him before we underſtand: which yet I think I ſhall in ſome meaſure be forced to do, or ſay nothing, 1. I finde it very hard to underſtand what perſons they be that he takes to be in Covenant: 2. And as hard to underſtand what Covenant he means. For the firſt, I finde it clear that negatively he means, They are not truly Regenerate perſons, but Poſitively how they muſt be qualified I finde not ſo clear. Pag. 189. he ſaith it was with all that bore the name of Iſrael (which is no further true then I have laid down in the former Concluſions) ſo that it may ſeem that he takes all to be in Covenant that bear the name of Chriſtians. What? though they know not what Chriſt or Chriſtianity is? Is taking a name, entering into Covenant? The poor Indians that by thouſands are forced by the Spaniards to be baptized, are ſaid to know ſo little what they do, that ſome of them forget the name of [a Chriſtian] which they aſſumed.

Pag. 192. he ſaith [All profeſſed Chriſtians, ſo called, are in an outward and ſingle Covenant] 1. What? thoſe that are called profeſſed Chriſtians, and are not? No: ſure that's not the meaning: elſe mens miſcalling might put them in Covenant. It is then thoſe that are ſo, and are called ſo: But will it not ſerve, if they are ſo, unleſs called ſo? 2. He means either thoſe that profeſs the name of Chriſtianity, or the Thing. Of the inſufficiency of the firſt, I ſpoke before. For the ſecond, if they profeſs the whole Eſſence of Chriſtianity undiſſembledly, I think they are truly Regenerate. If they profeſs but part (as to the Matter both of Aſſent and Conſent, of which I ſpoke before in the Concluſions, and which we have in this County lately ſet down in our Profeſſion of Faith) then it is not Chriſtianity which they profeſs: for part of the eſſence is not the Thing: where an eſſential part is wanting, the form is abſent. If it be the whole matter of Chriſtianity that is profeſſed, but Diſſembledly; then as he is equivocally or analogically a Believer or Chriſtian, ſo I yield he is a member of the Viſible Church, which ſo far as it is only Viſible, is equivocally called The Church: of which I have fullier ſpoken in Anſwer to Mr Tombes Praecurſor. I know Mr Bl. thinks, that there may be an undiſſembled Profeſſion, which yet may not be of a ſaving Faith. But then I yet conceive it is not an entire Profeſſion of the whole eſſential object of Chriſtian faith, viz. of Aſſent and Conſent. It will be a hard ſaying to many honeſt Chriſtians to ſay, that a man not juſtified may believe every fundamental Article, and withall truly profeſs Repentance of all his ſins, and to Take God for his Soveraign to Rule him, and his chief Good to be enjoyed to his happineſs; and to take Chriſt for his Lord and only Saviour, and his Word for his Law and Rule, and the holy Ghoſt for his Guide and Sanctifier, and the reſt which is eſſential to Chriſtianity.

Pag. 192. He ſaith of all that externally make Profeſſion (Theſe engage themſelves upon Gods terms.] But if they do ſo ſincerely they are ſincere Chriſtians: If not ſincerely, they are but equivocally Chriſtians. Some think that in the 11th Chapter of the 3d part of my Book of Reſt, I gave too much to an unregenerate eſtate: and yet I think there is nothing contrary to this that I now ſay. He that profeſſeth not to preferre God and the Redeemer before all other things, profeſſeth not Chriſtianity: and he that profeſſeth this and lieth not, is a Regenerate juſtified Chriſtian.

Pag. 200. he deſcribeth his unregenerate Chriſtians to be ſuch [as Accept the terms of the Covenant.] And this none doth indeed but the ſanctified. If Mr. Bl. will ſay, that the unregenerate may do it, he will make them true believers: For what is true faith but an Accepting of Chriſt and his Benefits on the Covenant terms? Though I confeſs others may falſly ſay, they Accept him.

Pag. 220. he ſaith [Laws tendred by a Prince, and received by a People, make up the Relation of King and people (yet indeed, that's not true, for it is the Receiving the man to be our King which is antecedent to the receiving his Laws, that makes the Relation.) A marriage Covenant tendred by a man, and accepted by a Virgin, makes up the Relation of Husband and Wife: Covenant draughts between man and man for ſervice, make up the Relation of Maſter and Servant: Now the Goſpel Covenant is all of theſe between God and a People.] Rep. The Accepting Chriſt in this Covenant is true Juſtifying Faith: If an unregenerate man have this indeed, then he is juſtified, and Faith and Juſtification are common things, which I will not believe. If Mr. Bl. mean that the external profeſſion of this Acceptance, alone, doth make up the Relation, I ſay, as before; It may oblige the Profeſſour, but makes not up the Relation of Real Chriſtians, becauſe God conſe…teth not, nor is actually in Covenant and obliged. The differences Mr. Bl. muſt take notice of, between his humane Covenants, and ours with God, or elſe he will marre all. Men know not one anothers hearts, and therefore make not Laws for hearts, nor impoſe Conditions on hearts: and therefore if both parties do profeſs Conſent, though diſſemblingly, they are both obliged, and the Covenant is mutual. But God offers to Conſent, only on Condition that our hearts Conſent to his terms; and therefore if we profeſs Conſent, and do not Conſent, God Conſenteth not, nor is, as it were obliged.

Next Mr. Bl. proceeds there to tell us, that the Accepting the Word preached, is the note of the Church. But that is a more lax ambiguous term then the former. Some call it an accepting the Word, when they are content to hear it: Some when they ſpeculatively believe the truth of it. Theſe are no true notes of true Chriſtians, or Churches (in the firſt ſenſe of the word Church.) Others Accept but part of that word, which is the neceſſary object of Faith, of whom the like may he ſaid. It is the Accepting Chriſt and Life in him, offered by this word, which is Chriſtianity it ſelf, or true Faith: and the profeſſion of this, is that which makes a man a Member of the Viſible Church (He may accept it for his Infants alſo.) So much for the indagation of Mr. Bl's meaning about the deſcription of his viſible Chriſtians.

Next, what he means by [Covenant] I confeſs I deſpair of knowing. Sometime he ſpeaks as if he meant it but of their own act of Covenant, whereby they oblige themſelves. But ordinarily, it is evident, that he ſpeaks of a mutual Covenant, …nd makes God to be alſo in Covenant with them. But what Covenant of God is t…is? Pag. 192. He ſaith [they are in an outward and ſingle Covenant.] But what he means by a ſingle Covenant, I know not. He there alſo chooſeth to expreſs himſelf in Paraeus words, who diſtinguiſheth inter beneficia foederis (which he denieth them) and Jus foederis (which he alloweth them.) But I confeſs I know not what Jus foederis is, except one of theſe two things: 1. A Right to enter Covenant with Chriſt: and ſo have Infidels. 2. Or a Right to the Benefits promiſed in the Covenant: and this he denieth them. If he meaneth (as Par…eus ſeems) a Right to be eſteemed as Covenanters, and uſed as Covenanters, by the Church (though indeed God is not in Covenant with them) this we eaſily grant.

But Mr. Bl's common phraſe is, that they are [in the outward Covenant] and what that is, I cannot tell. I know what it is to covenant ore tenus, only outwardly, or by a diſſembled profeſſion, or elſe a profeſſion maimed, or not underſtood; and I have ſaid▪ that hereby they may further oblige themſelves (ſo far as the creature can be ſaid to oblige it ſelf, who is not ſui Juris, but wholly Gods, and is under his abſolute obligation already.) But it is Gods Covenant act that we are enquiring after. In what ſenſe is that called Outward? 1. It cannot be as if God did as the diſſembling creature, ore tenus, with the mouth only covenant with them, and not with the heart, as they deal with him: 2. I know therefore no poſſible ſenſe but this, that it is called [Outward] from the Bleſſings promiſed which are outward. Here therefore, 1. I ſhould have thought it but reaſonable for Mr. Bl. to have told us what thoſe outward Bleſſings are that this Covenant promiſeth. 2. That he would have proved out of Scripture that God hath ſuch a Covenant, diſtinct from the Covenant of Grace, which promiſeth Juſtification and Salvation, and having other Conditions on our part. For both theſe I cannot finde what outward bleſſings he means but Church Ordinances and Priviledges. Theſe conſiſt in the Word, Sacraments, Prayer, Diſcipline. For the Word, God oft beſtoweth it on Infidels, and in England there are men that deride the truth of Scripture, and eſteem it a fiction, and yet for credit of men, come ordinarily to the Congregation. Theſe have the Word given them, and ſo have other unregenerate men: but not by Covenant that I know of. Even the godly have no Covenant aſſuring them that for the future they ſhall enjoy the Word, further then it is in their hearts (except that promiſe with a reſerve, If God ſee it Good, &c.) Where hath God ſaid, If thou wilt with thy mouth profeſs to believe, I will give thee my Word preached? 2. For Baptiſm, It is part of our profeſſion it ſelf. And though God hath commiſſioned us to Baptize ſuch profeſſours and their ſeed, yet that is not a Covenant with them: Nor do I know where God ſaith, I will give thee Baptiſm, if thou wilt but ſay, thou believeſt, or if thou wilt profeſs ſeriouſly a half faith: More ſhall be ſaid againſt this anon. 3. For the Lords Supper the ſame may be ſaid. God hath no where made a Covenant, that they ſhall have the Lords Supper that will profeſs faith. To feign God to make a Covenant with man, whoſe condition ſhall be orall profeſſion, and whoſe Bleſſing promiſed, is only the nudum ſignum, a little water to waſh men, and a little bread and wine, without that Chriſt, and Remiſſion of ſin, Mortification and Spiritual Life, which theſe Sacraments are in their Inſtitution appointed to ſignifie, ſeal and exhibit, this is, I think a groundleſs and preſumptuous courſe. 4. The ſame may be ſaid of Diſcipline: which, alas few Churches do enjoy. I deſire therefore that thoſe words of Scripture may be produced where any ſuch outward Covenant is contained. I take outward Ordinances and other bleſſings to be a ſecond part of, or certain appurtenances to the bleſſings of the great Covenant of Grace, and given by Covenant on the ſame condition (of true faith) as Juſtification it ſelf is: but allowed or given by Providence, where and when God pleaſeth, and ſometime to Infidels that never made profeſſion, as to ſome of them (the Word and temporal mercies) and not aſſured by promiſe to any ungodly man, that from Providence receiveth them.

At laſt, after this neceſſary explication, I come to Mr. Bl's words which I propounded to Reply to. And firſt, when he ſaith [A dogmatical faith entitleth to Baptiſm.] I reply, 1. A meer Dogmatical, Hiſtorical faith, is only in the underſtanding; and that not Practical neither. Now if this be the condition of the outward Covenant, then it may conſiſt with a Renouncing Chriſt, and open diſclaiming him, yea a perſecuting the very Chriſtian name: For a man may ſpeculatively and ſleightly believe the word of God to be true, and yet may openly profeſs [I love the world, and my pleaſure, and honour, ſo much better then Chriſt; that I am reſolved I will be no Chriſtian, nor be baptized, nor take Chriſt on the terms that he is offered on.] At leaſt, he that profeſſeth Aſſent only, and will not profeſs conſent alſo, doth not profeſs Chriſtianity: For Chriſtianity and true faith lieth in the Wils conſent, as well as the underſtandings Aſſent. 2. And how can Mr. Bl call this Dogmatical faith, a covenanting? when covenanting is known to be the expreſſion of the Wils conſent, and not the profeſſion of an opinion. 3. If a Dogmatical faith be the condition, and make a man a Chriſtian, then he may be a Chriſtian againſt his Will: which was yet never affirmed.

But Mr. Bl. in his explication of this Dogmatical faith, addeth by way of excluſion [though not affecting the heart to a full choice of Chriſt.] Where he ſeems to imply (though he expreſs it not) that the faith which he meaneth doth affect the heart to a choice of Chriſt which is not full. But if ſo, then 1. It is much more then Aſſent, or a meer Hiſtorical Dogmatical faith. 2. But is the choice which he intimateth Real, as to the Act, and ſuited to the Object? That is, the real choice of ſuch a Chriſt as is offered, and on ſuch terms? If ſo, it is Juſtifying faith. If not, either it is counterfeit as to the Act, or but nominal as to the Object, and is indeed no chooſing of Chriſt. Though perhaps, it may not be ſuited to the Accidentals of the object, yet to the Eſſentials it muſt, or elſe it hath but equivocally the name as a corps hath the name of a man.

He ſaith, [The Covenant is the Ground of Baptiſm, otheewiſe Church-memberſhip would evince no Title, &c.] Repl. 1. I take Gods precept to be the Ground of Baptiſm, as it is officium a Duty, both as to the baptizer and the baptized: and his Promiſe, or his Covenant Grant, to be the Ground of mens Right to it, as it is a Benefit given directly by God: and their own true conſent, faith or covenanting (which with me are all one, for all that you ſay againſt it) to be the condition of that Right. But then I think that in foro Eccleſiae a diſſembler may claim that Right which ſtrictly he hath not, and we muſt grant him what he claims when he brings a Probable ground of his claim: And in that it is Miniſters duty to Baptize ſuch, they may indirectly, and quoad Eccleſiam be ſaid to have Right to be Baptized. I ſay Indirectly, yea and improperly: for it is not the reſult of Gods Covenant Grant to them; but of his precept to his Miniſters, and his Inſtructions, whom they ought to Baptize.

2. I argued from Right of admiſſion to Church-memberſhip, with Mr. T. and that Right I take the heart-covenant (of Parent or parties themſelves) to be the condition of, as to the Inviſible Church-ſtate, and the Profeſſion of that Covenant, not alone, but joyned with it, to be the condition of true Right before God to Viſible-memberſhip; though men are but to uſe him as one that hath true Right, who by an hypocritical profeſſion ſeems to have Right.

Where he takes me to grant his Antecedent, that [the Covenant is entred with men of ſaith not ſaving] he doth me wrong: For in the propereſt ſenſe (i. e. as if God were actually, as it were, obliged to ſuch, in the Covenant of Grace, I never ſaid it: But how far ſuch are in Covenant or under promiſe, I have by neceſſary diſtinction explained before: and I think it beſeems not a ſerious Treatiſe of the Covenants, wherein this Queſtion is ſo largely of purpoſe handled to have confounded thoſe ſeveral conſiderations, and diſpute ſo ſeriouſly before the Reader can tell about what.

The words which Mr. Bl. queſtioneth, I confeſs are mine, againſt Dr. Ward, and I did not think in ſo groſs an opinion Dr. Ward would have found any ſecond to undertake that cauſe.

§. 40.

Mr. Bl. 1. ALL that hath been ſaid for the latitude of the Covenant, may ſitly be applyed in oppoſition to this Tenent, for the like latitude of Baptiſm.

§. 40.

R. B. THerefore did I ſay the more of the Covenant before, to ſhew your confuſion and miſtake in that. It is not every Covenant or Promiſe that Baptiſm is the Seal of.

§. 41.

Mr. Bl. ALL the Abſurdities following the reſtraint of the Covenant to the Elect, to men of faith ſaving and juſtifying, follow upon this reſtraint of intereſt in Baptiſm.