Apology Against the Exceptions of Black and Kendall, Section Blake 52
§. 52.
HAving Replyed to your Anſwer, I ſhall be bold to trouble you with ſome more Arguments to this point. Mr. Blake affirmeth, that Juſtifying Faith is the great Condition to which Baptiſm engageth,Rivet in Animad. in Annotat. Grotli in Caſſandr. in art. 4. p. 13. fol. Fides quae non parit obedientiae propoſitum, non eſt vera fides. Haec cum primum ingeneratur cum poenitentia conjuncta eſt, quae non poteſt eſſe ſine obedientiae propoſito. Fidei formatae & inſormis apud Veteres Catholicos ne Veſtigium quidem reperitur, ſi de fide Juſtificante & ſalvifica, &c. and therefore not prerequiſite to Baptiſm; and that an acknowledgment of the Neceſſity of ſuch Faith with engagement to it, is ſufficient for a title to the Seal: and ſo it is a Dogmatical Faith which entitles to Baptiſm, in which Baptiſm we muſt engage to believe with a lively and working Faith hereafter: Againſt this Doctrine I argue. 1. From Authority (beginning with the loweſt Argument). The Reverend Aſſembly in their Advice for Church Government, Printed after the Directory, pag. 58. of the Church ſay thus, Particular Churches in the Primitive times were made up of Viſible Saints. viz. of ſuch as being of Age, profeſſed faith in Chriſt, and obedience unto Chriſt, according to the Rule of Faith and Life, taught by Chriſt and his Apoſtles; and of their children: and they cite Act. 2.…8, 41, laſt: compared with Act. 5.14. 1 Cor. 1.2. compared with 2 Cor. 9.13. Now if the Profeſſion of this Saint-ſhip in Faith and obedience according to the Rule, were neceſſary, then the profeſſion of Juſtifying Faith was neceſſary: For this is juſtifying Faith without doubt. And if ſo, then it is not a Faith ſhort of this which is the condition of Church member-ſhip; for then the profeſſion of that other imperfect Faith might ſuffice; of which more anon. See alſo the Aſſemblies Confeſſion. cap. 28. §. 1.6. and the two Catechiſms of Baptiſm, where 1. obſerve the ends of Baptiſm, that it Sealeth Remiſſion, Regeneration, Adoption, &c. 2. the ſubject, that none are to be Baptized at age till they profeſs their Faith in Chriſt and Obedience to him. Which if they do ſincerely no doubt that Faith is no leſs then juſtifying. See alſo what that truly Iudicious, Learned, Reverend Divine, Mr. Gataker hath Replyed to Dr. Ward, (viz. againſt thoſe words which I confuted, not knowing that it was Mr. Gataker that the Doctor dealt with) in Mr. Gatakers Deſceptatio de Baptiſmatis Infantilis vi & efficaci…, pag. 71. where he alſo cites Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Whitaker, &c. and therefore I will cite no more, (Mr. Marſhal in his late Sermon for Unity, I mentioned before.) A hundred might eaſily and truly be cited to this purpoſe.
Argu. 2. My Second Argument ſhall be from the Teſtimony and Practice of the pureſt Antiquity. 1▪ Juſtin Martyr in his ſecond Apologie, relating the Churches cuſtom in Baptizing, ſaith, As many as being perſwaded do believe theſe things to be true which we teach, and do promiſe to live according to them, they firſt learn by prayer and faſting to beg pardon of God for their former ſins, our ſelves alſo joyning our prayer and faſting: Then they are brought to the water and born again, in the ſame way as we our ſelves were born again: So for the other Sacrament he addeth, This food we call the Euchariſt▪ to which no man is admitted, but he that believeth the Truth of our Doctrine, being waſhed in the Laver of Regeneration, for Remiſsion of ſin, and that ſo liveth as Chriſt hath taught.
2. Irenaeus l. 4. c. 13. ſhews that Abrahams Faith by which he was juſtified, is the ſame with the Chriſtian Faith, yea with that whereby we begin to be ſaved. And cap. 76. having reference to the Baptiſmal Covenant, wherein men deliver up themſelves to Chriſt, he ſaith, Si igitur tradideris ei quod tuum eſt, id eſt, fidem in eum & ſubjectionem, percipies ejus artem, & eris perfectum Dei opus: ſi autem non credideris ei, & fugeris manus ejus, erit Cauſa in te, &c. Ille enim miſit qui vocarent ad Nuptias; qui autem non obedierunt ei ſemetipſos privarunt regiâ caenâ.
3. Athenagoras in Legat. pro Chriſtianis p. 3. foreign. Nullus enim Chriſtianus … eſt, niſi …anc profeſsionem ſimulaverit. He therefore that only profeſſeth, is but a counterfeit Chriſtian; and he that profeſſeth any thing lower then Holyneſs, or an obediential Faith, doth profeſs ſomewhat ſhort of Chriſtianity, and not Chriſtianity it ſelf.
4. Tertullian Apolog. cap. 44. Speaking how the Heathens were fain to puniſh one another in Priſons and houſes of Corrections, addes, Nemo illic Chriſtianus, niſi plane tantum Chriſtianus, aut ſi & aliud, jam non Chriſtianus; No Chriſtian comes there unleſs meerly becauſe he is a Chriſtian: or if otherwiſe (i. e. as a wicked liver) then he is no Chriſtian. And de Baptiſmo, he ſaith, (cap. 6.) Ita & angelus baptiſmi arbiter ſuperventuro ſpiritui ſancto vias dirigit ablutione delictorum quam fides impetrat, obſignata in Patre & Filio & ſpiritu ſancto. Many places might be cited in him, that ſhew, they took the Baptized for juſtified Believers.
5. Cyprian Epiſt. 23. Nam cum Dominus dixerit in nomine Patris, Filii & Spiritus ſancti gentes tingi, & in Baptiſmo, praeterita peccata dimitti, &c. And Epiſt. 2. §. 2. Sed poſtquam unde genitalis auxilio ſuperioris aevi labe deterſa, in expiatum pectus ac purum deſuper ſe lumen infudit, poſtquam caelitus ſpiritu hauſto in novum me hominem Nativitas Secunda reparavit, &c. But it is ſo well known a Caſe, that Antiquity runs wholly this way, that I think I may ſpare the labor of tranſcribing any more. I had at hand the full teſtimonies of Clemens Alexand. Origen, Epiphanius, Athanaſius, Lactantius, Nazianzen, Nyſſen, Baſil, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jeruſalem, Syneſius, Hierom, Macarius, Euſebius, with divers others, which I now caſt by as tedious and unneceſſary, but ſhall produce quickly, if I once finde it of any uſe. Yet two or three brief ones I will add, which ſhew that it is the Covenanting or Profeſſing of true Obedience, and conſequently of a lively working Faith that is required, and not the profeſſion of an unſound faith only.
6. Nazianzen Orat. 40. p. 641. vol. 1. (Edit. Morel.) ſaith, For to ſumme up all in a word▪ we ought to judge, that the force and faculty of Baptiſm, is nothing elſe but a Covenant entered with God, for (or a Promiſe made to God of) a Second Life, (or a new Life) and a more pure courſe of living: And therefore that we ſhall all exceedingly fear, and with all diligence keep our Souls, leſt we be found to have violated this Covenant. And doubtleſs to enter ſuch a Covenant ſincerely, is the work of a Faith not ſhort of juſtifying: and therefore it is juſtifying Faith which in Baptiſm is profeſſed, and thereto required.
7. Baſil. Amph. c. 9. As we believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghoſt, ſo are we Baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghoſt. And Confeſsion as Captain leads the way to ſalvation: and Baptiſm ſealing up our Promiſe (or Covenant) followeth. (It is then a Seal of our Promiſe, as well as of Gods.)
8. Chryſoſtom, Tom. 5. Hom…l. ad Neoph. Would we did anſwerably go on, and thoſe Symbols and Covenants wherewith we are bound, did ſtick in our hearts; we have confeſſed Chriſts Government; we have renounced the Devils Tyrannie; This Handwriting, this Covenant, this Symbol we are taught is conſcribed: See that we be not again found Debtors to this hand-writing.
9. Hierom, Dial, adverſ. Lucif. ſaith again and again that Baptiſma non eſt (& nullum eſt) ſine ſpiritu ſancto: which ſaying, though I approve not, yet that and many more paſſages in that Dialogue fully ſhew his judgement in this point.
10. Salvian de Gubern. l. 4. initio, ſaith, Nam cum hoc ſit hominis Chriſtiani fides, fideliter Chriſti mandata ſervare, fit abſque dubio ut nec fidem habeat qui infidelis eſt, nec Chriſtum credat qui Chriſti mandata conculcat. Ac per hoc totum in id revolvitur, ut qui Chriſtiani nominis opus non agit, Chriſtianus non eſſe videatur. Nomen enim ſine actu atque officio ſuo nihil eſt. Et lib. 3. p. 66. Quid eſt igitur Credulitas vel fides? opinor fideliter hominem Chriſto credere, id eſt, fidelem Deo eſſe, hoc eſt, fideliter Dei mandata ſervare. pag. 67. Infidelis ſit neceſſe eſt, qui fidei commiſſa non ſervat.
Argu. 3. If it be required in Baptiſm▪ that men do ſincerely promiſe for the future to Believe ſavingly, and to obey Chriſt ſincerely, then Iuſtifying Faith is required in Baptiſm. But the Antecedent is acknowledged by Mr. Bl. (except the word ſincerely.) He yieldeth that men muſt in Baptiſm engage to do this hereafter. Now I would know of him, whether God require them to make this engagement ſeriouſly, ſincerely, & firmato animo, or not? If not, then God calls them but to Diſſemble, which is not true. If yea; then I ſay, This is juſtifying Faith it ſelf, or at leaſt comes from it, if it be a Promiſe to do this preſently without delay. For he that will heartily engage himſelf to obey Chriſt as his Soveraign, and reſt on him for ſalvation, muſt needs be reſolved ſo to do. But he that is ſo reſolved, is a true Believer: For his will is ſanctified; or elſe he could not be thus reſolved. But if it be only for ſo long time hence, that a man promiſeth to believe and obey ſincerely, with a reſerve and reſolution to live wickedly till then, I hope few will believe that this is the condition of Baptiſm, or the true Baptiſmal Covenant.
Argu. 4. They that are to Renounce the World, Fleſh, and Devil, are to be true believers (to juſtification); but they that are to be baptized, are then to Renounce the World, Fleſh and Devil: therefore &c. The major is evident, in that renounceing theſe, is a renounceing them as Rulers that would command us before God, or as worldly, fleſhly pleaſures or profits, might ſeem our chief good, to be preferred before God. Now it is none but the ſincere believer that can ſo renounce theſe. All others are ſervants to them, and make them their end. The Minor is proved thus. 1. There can be no motus to the Terminus ad quem, but there muſt alſo be a Terminus à quo. The World, Fleſh and Devil, are the Terminus à quo; without which we cannot be ſaid to take God for our God, or Chriſt for our Lord-Redeemer. 2. De facto, this Abrenunciation hath been uſed in the Churches Baptiſm, ever ſince the Apoſtles days, as far as we have any Hiſtory to guide us. Tertullian, Cyprian, and all Antiquity uno ore that write of theſe things, put that paſt queſtion. And I dare not think that Chriſts Church hath ever required that as neceſſary in Baptiſm, which was not requiſite till afterward. And if Mr. Bl. ſay, that they did but promiſe for the future, not to follow the World, Fleſh and Devil before Chriſt: I Reply, They renounced them at preſent, and thereby ſhewed the preſent converſion and Reſolution of their hearts, that it was afterward that this was to be manifeſted in action.
Argu. 5. They that are required to believe ſincerely in the Father, Son and Holy-Ghoſt, are required to believe to Juſtification. But ſuch are all that come to baptiſm. Therefore. For the major, it requires no more proof, but to explain what it is to believe in the Father, Son and Holy-Ghoſt. And our Divines againſt the Papiſts have enough proved, that the phraſe of Believing in, comprehendeth the act of the will as well as of the underſtanding. To believe in God, is to take him for our God: to take him for our God, is to take him for our Soveraign, Ruler and Chief good. This none but a ſound believer can truly do. Mr. Bl. confeſſeth elſwhere, that …his is the ſumme of the Covenant, to take God for our God, & give up our ſelves to be his people.
For the Minor: They that are to be baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy-Ghoſt, are to believe in the Father, Son, and Holy-Ghoſt. But all that are baptized, are to be baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy-Ghoſt; therefore.
Were it neceſſary, many Texts might be cited that prove it is not only Aſſent, but a believing in Chriſt, that is requiſite. The very Creed ſhews it, which hath Credo in Deum, &c. which Creed, for the main Articles of it, the Church hath ever required all to profeſs, that would be baptized, before the application of the water. And then that this is required to be done ſincerely, needs no proof with them that will not believe that God commands or loves diſſembling. So that I conclude, This ſincere Faith is required in and before baptiſm, and not only to be promiſed that we will perform it hereafter.
Argu. 6. They that are required to repent ſincerely are required to believe to juſtification at the ſame time. But all that come to baptiſm (at age) are required to repent ſincerely; therefore.
The major is evident, 1. In that ſincere Repentance and true Faith are inſeparable. 2. In that Remiſſion is promiſed to all that truly Repent, as well as to them that believe. The Minor is proved from ſeveral plain Scriptures. Act. 2.38. Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the Name of Jeſus Chriſt for the Remiſsion of ſins: And it was no half or common Repentance that he calls them to; for Remiſſion of ſins was to be its Conſequent. If Mr. Bl. ſay here alſo, That it is the weakeſt of all Arguments, to argue from the order expreſſed in Scripture: I ſhall ſay I will not believe him; becauſe I ſuppoſe Scripture in ſuch Practical directions, ſpeaks not more confuſedly or prepoſterouſly then he or I would do: Act. 11.18. It is called Repentance unto life, which the Gentils had before and in their Baptiſm: yea they had firſt the Holy-Ghoſt, Act. 10.47. And Heb. 6.1. Repentance from dead works is a Principle. Paul, the Jaylor, and all that we read of that were Baptized, did repent or ſeemed ſo to do, and were required to do it before Baptiſm. If Mr. Bl. ſ…y, It is a Repentance ſhort of that which is ſaving, that is here required; I would he would deſcribe it to us, and tell us wherein it is ſhort? 1. Objectively, I hope he will not deny but it is every ſin, that men ſhould repent of. 2. Subjectively, it is doubtleſs, ſincere, and not counterfeit, that is required. I conclude therefore, that ſeeing ſaving Repentance is prerequiſite to Baptiſm, by Gods appointment, and not only to be promiſed to be afterward performed, we muſt ſay the ſame of ſaving Faith.
Argu. 7. If ſaving Grace be not required in Chriſts Baptiſm, then it requireth leſs then Johns Baptiſm did. But the Conſequent is falſe: therefore ſo is the Antecedent.
The Conſequence of the major is all that requires proof. Which I prove from many Texts, Mat. 3.2.6, 8. He firſt preacheth Repentance, and cauſeth them to confeſs their ſins, and reprehendeth the Phariſes that came in Hypocriſie, or▪ with unſound Repentance. And it was true Repentance; for Remiſſion of ſins was annext, Mar. 1.4. And it may not only be required after Baptiſm, but before; and it is called the Baptiſm of Repentance, becauſe in it they profeſſed Repentance. So Act. 13.24 and 19.4.
Argu. 8. If Faith-Juſtifying be required before Remiſſion of ſin, then is it required of God before we come to Baptiſm (or in us before we bring our Infants). But ſuch Faith is prerequiſite to Remiſſion of ſin; therefore.
The conſequence is proved thus. Remiſſion is the end and immediate conſequent of Baptiſm, where men come as God hath required them. Therefore, if ſincere Faith be prerequiſite to Remiſſion, it is prerequiſite alſo to right to Baptiſm.
I prove the Antecedent: Act. 22.16. Ananias ſaith to Paul, Why tarryeſt thou? ariſe and be baptized, and waſh away thy ſins. This was a preſent Remiſſion, and not a future only. So Act. 2.38. Be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jeſus Chriſt for the Remiſsion of ſins. And it is a Faith which hath the Promiſe of Remiſſion which Peter requires of the Gentils before he baptize them. Act. 10.43. Act. 13.39. the Apoſtle tells them, All that belive are Juſtified, when he is perſwading them to believe. It is therefore a believing to Juſtification, which he was perſwading them to. Rom. 6.3, 4. Know ye not, that as many as were Baptized into Jeſus Chriſt, were baptized into his death? therefore we are buryed with him, …y baptiſm into death, that like as Chriſt was raiſed up from the dead, &c. It is therefore in the act of Baptiſm, that we are buried and riſe Sacramentally, to ſignifie the preſent change of our ſtate from the Grave of ſin. So Col. 2.11, 12, 13. and 1 Pet. 3.21. Baptiſm is ſaid to ſave us, but not the external waſhing, without the anſwer of a good conſcience; which affordeth two arguments. One in that Baptiſm ſaveth, and therefore leaves not man (when rightly uſed) a childe of wrath afterward. 2. In that the Anſwer of a good conſcience is required to concurr with Baptiſm: for ſo the Apoſtle plainly intimates, and the beſt Expoſitors underſtand it, and not of a thing to follow, as Mr. Bl. doth. Eph. 5.25, 26. Chriſt loved the Church, and gave himſelf for it, that he might ſanctifie and cleanſe it with the waſhing of water by the word. Wherefore Paul ſuppoſeth them cleanſed that are Baptized: 1 Cor. 6.11. Such were ſome of you, but ye are waſhed, but ye are ſanctified, but ye are Juſtified in the name of the Lord Jeſus, &c. And Expoſitors judge that the Holy-Ghoſt refers to the ſign as well as the thing ſignified, to the Sacrament as well as Subſtance, when he makes waſhing ſo neceſſary, and ſpeaks of waſhing us from our ſins in the blood of Chriſt, Rev. 1.5. Though he make them not equal in neceſsity. Joh. 3.5. Except a man be born of water, &c. Heb. 10.22. Let us draw neer with a true heart, in full aſſurance of faith, having our hearts ſprinkled from an evil conſcience, and our bodyes waſhed with pure water. If it be the end of Baptiſm, to waſh our hearts from an evil conſcience, (i. e. à Conſcientia mali.) then it is the end of Baptiſm, to Seal the preſent Remiſſion of ſin: But &c. therefore, Tit. 3.5. He ſaved us by the waſhing of Regeneration: It is a ſaving work that Baptiſm is appointed to do. By Regeneration I underſtand, our new Relative ſtate, at leaſt principally. He that is in Chriſt is a new creature; old things are paſſed away; behold all things are become new. He hath a new head, is a member of a new ſocietie, the old guilt of ſin is done away, the old enmity between God and us; we have a new Father, new brethren, new right to farther bleſſings, as well as a new heart. Regeneration is too narrowly taken for a Renovation of the heart alone. So that I think Remiſſion and Reconciliation and Adoption, are meant by Regeneration, in Tit. 3.5. and Col. 2.11, 12. The ſpeaking of Baptiſm, and the heart-circumciſion therein received or profeſſed, ſaith, they put off the body of the ſins of the fleſh, by the circumciſion of Chriſt, being buryed with him in Baptiſm, &c. So in 2 Pet. 1.9. The Apoſtle ſaith, He that lacketh theſe things is blinde, and cannot ſee far off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old ſins: that is Sacramentally, and as far as the Church could go in purifying him: which ſhews that the end of Baptiſm is (by obſignation and ſolemnization) to purge men from their old ſins▪ or as Paul ſpeaks, The ſins that are paſt, through the forbearance of God, &c. Rom. 5. So that Remiſſion of ſins at preſent, being the end of Baptiſm rightly received, it muſt needs follow that Juſtifying faith is prerequiſite to the right receiving it, and that it is not ſome other Faith, nor is it enough to promiſe Juſtifying Faith for hereafter.
Argu. 9. If the Apoſtles uſe to communicate the proper Titles of the Juſtified to all that are Baptized, (till they ſee them prove apoſtates or hypocrites) then they did take all the Baptized to be probably juſtified (though they might know that there were hypocrites among them, yet either they knew them not, or might not denominate the body from a few that they did know) But the Antecedent is true; therefore.
I need not cite Scriptures to prove that the baptized are called by the Apoſtles, Believers, Saints, Diſciples, Chriſtians: Mr. Blake hath done it already, chap. 28. Now who knows not that ſalvation is made the Portion of Believers, Saints, Diſciples? But what, is it another ſort of them? or doth Scripture uſe to divide Saints, as the Genus into two Species? Not that I know of; It is but as an aequivocum in ſua aequivocata: The Apoſtles naming men according to their appearance and Profeſsion, and calling them ſuch as they probably might be. Why elſe ſhould they call them ſuch, had not they ſeemed to be ſuch, and profeſſed it? The names therefore do not primarily agree to theſe as a true Species of Believers, Saints, Diſciples, Chriſtians; but ſecondarily, as the name of a man to a Corps, or as the name of a Habit to a diſpoſition, by tranſlation, or Analogie.
But to put the matter beyond doubt, I wiſh Mr. Bl. to conſider, that its not only theſe forementioned titles, but even the reſt which he will acknowledge proper to the Regenerate, which are given by the Apoſtles generally to the baptized. Adoption is aſcribed to them, Gal. 3.26, 27. For yee are all the children of God by Faith in Chriſt Jeſus: for as many of you as have been baptized into Chriſt, have put on Chriſt. 2. The ſame …ext aſcribeth to them Union with Chriſt; yee have put on Chriſt. 3. And Union with his body; ye are all one in Chriſt Jeſus. 4. Yea the next verſe addes, And if ye be Chriſts, ye are Abrahams ſeed, and heirs according to the Promiſe. What more proper to the truly ſanctified? So the Apoſtle ſaith to all the Churches of Colloſs in general. 5. That they had put off the body of ſin, being buryed with Chriſt in Baptiſm, wherein alſo they were riſen with him, through the Faith of the operation of God; Col. 2.11, 12. 6. Yea in 1 Cor. 6.11. He tells the Corinthians, they were waſhed, ſanctified, and juſtified in the name of the Lord Jeſus; ſo that Juſtification it ſelf is aſcribed to them. Col. 2.13. The Apoſtle tells them, God had quickned them with Chriſt, having forgiven …hem all treſpaſſes. 7. Yea the like he ſaith of their ſalvation, 1 Cor. 15.2. Eph. 2.5, 6, 7, 8. yea he tells them verſe 19. Now therefore ye are no more ſtrangers and ſorreiners, but fellow-Citizens with the Saints and of the houſhold of God; and leſt any ſhould think that Saints and Citizens, and the houſhold of God, do here ſignifie but common Priviledges of the viſible Church, he addes, And are built upon the foundation of the Apoſtles and Prophets, Jeſus Chriſt himſelf being the chief corner-Stone, in whom all the building fitly framed together, groweth to an holy Temple in the Lord; in whom you alſo are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. Where moſt planly the Church is manifeſted to be but one, and that one to have ſaving Priviledges, and conſequently, thoſe that have not theſe, to be but equivocally Chriſtians.
Many more texts might be produced, where the moſt particular Priviledges of the Saints are given to whole Churches in common: which … that the name is by Analogy or equivocally given from the ſincere, to the reſt, becauſe we are to judge and denominate on probabilities.
Argu. 10. If the profeſsion of Juſtifying Faith be requiſite in Baptiſm, then the Faith ſo profeſſed is requiſite to the right receiving of it (and not only to be performed hereafter.) But ſuch profeſsion is requiſite; therefore.
The major is as true, as that God requireth no man to lye and diſſemble, and to profeſs that with his mouth which is not in his heart: nor doth he make lying the condition of his Covenant, (let them call it an outward Covenant, or what they will: if it be Gods Covenant, this can be none of the condition.) For it muſt firſt in order be a Dutie, before it be made Conditional. And no lye is a Dutie. Profeſsing is a Dutie to them that have the thing they profeſs: but to others, immediately and in ſenſu compoſito, it is a hainous ſin, and no duty: though it be their duty ſtill to get Faith firſt, and then to profeſs it.
The minor is proved already, in the foregoing arguments, and more ſhall be anon. It is no leſs then juſtifying Faith that Chriſts Church hath ever to this day required the Baptized to profeſs before the application of the water. To believe in God the Father, Son and Holy-Ghoſt, and profeſs Repentance for all ſins, and to renounce the world, the fleſh and Devil, &c. And when Mr. Bl. maketh profeſſion enough to give Right to baptiſm, I would know whether he mean the profeſsion of Juſtifying-Faith, or not. If yea, then Juſtifying Faith is prerequiſite, or elſe the profeſsion of it could not. If not, then the profeſsion of true Chriſtianity is not requiſite; but of ſome part of it. For, as I have ſhewed, it is not the true Chriſtian Faith, but ſome part of it only, if it be ſhort of that Faith which is juſtifying. And let men ſay no more, that profeſsion is it that entitles to Baptiſm, without the thing profeſſed, when they take even profeſsion it ſelf of true Chriſtianitie to be conſequential, and not prerequiſite.
Argu. 11. If Baptiſm be the ſolemnizing of the myſtical marriage between Chriſt and the baptized, then true juſtifying Faith is of God required thereto: but the Antecedent is true; therefore.
Therefore is it ſaid that we are baptized into Chriſt, and into one body. And the Church hath ever held the Antecedent to be true. The conſequence is evident; in that no man but the ſound believer, can truly take Chriſt as a Husband and Head; for ſo to do, is juſtifying Faith. It is Chriſt himſelf firſt in order, and then his benefits that are offered in the Sacraments. The main buſineſs of them is to exhibite Chriſt himſelf to be received by a marriage Covenanting. The ſigns are but means and inſtruments, as a twig and turfe and Key in giving poſſeſsion; When the miniſter in Chriſts name ſaith, Take, Eat, &c. it is not only bread that he bids men take, but firſt and principally Chriſt by Faith. Joahimus Vadianus (Aphoriſm▪ de Euchariſt. li. 3. pag. 82.) much commendeth a ſaying of Chryſoſtoms, viz. If thou hadſt no body, then Christ would have delivered thee all theſe gifts nakedly (or immediately): but becauſe thy Soul is conjoyned with a body, he hath delivered them in and with theſe ſenſible things. It is one of the greateſt errors that can be committed in the Sacraments, to overlook Chirſt himſelf who is offered, and to look only either to the ſigns or to his other gifts. We receive him firſt as our Saviour, our Soveraign, Redeemer, our Head, our Huſband, our Captain and Guide. He therefore that comes to theſe ordinances, doth pretend thus to receive Chriſt: and doubtleſs to receive him thus ſincerely, is true juſ…ing ſaying Faith: and therefore it is ſaving Faith that is called for to the due Receiving of the Sacraments. And doubtleſs God means a ſincere, and not a ſeeming, diſſembled, nominal Faith, in his command.
Argu. 12. If there be no ſuch Covenan… mentioned in the Scripture, (ſpecially to be ſealed with baptiſm) wherein men engage themſelves to perform hereafter their firſt act of true Repentance and juſtifying Faith, then Mr. Blakes Doctrine is unſound: but there is no ſuch Covenant; therefore.
Men are oft in Scripture called to Repent and Believe; but nowhere (that I know of) to Covenant with God that they will hereafter begin to do it ſincerely; much leſs is there ſuch a Covenant ſealed with Baptiſm. They that affirm ſuch a thing, let them prove it, if they can.
Argu. 13. If according to Mr. Blakes Doctrine no true ſound Believer, or Penitent perſon, can regularly be baptized; then his Doctrine is unſound. But the Antecedent is true; therefore.
The conſequence is proved before. The Antecedent is proved thus: According to his Doctrine, ſaving Faith, accepting Chriſt to Juſtification, is the great condition to which Baptiſm engageth, and is not prerequiſite therein. Therefore he that already performeth that condition, is paſt ſuch engageing to do it initially hereafter: and ſo hath no uſe for baptiſm as to that engagement to the great condition: ſo that if ſuch a perſon be baptized, it muſt be to other ends then the Ordinance is appointed for, and ſo not Regularly. The like may be ſaid of Gods part? for to ſuch a Believer God ſhould Seal Remiſsion paſt or preſent; whereas according to Mr. Bl. the Ordinance is inſtituted to ſeal Remiſsion future.
Argu. 14. If the Doctrine oppoſed be true, then the Goſpel preached before baptiſm, was not inſtituted, nor is to be uſed as a means (at leaſt an ordinary means) of ſaving converſion (i. e. of produc…ng ſaving Faith and Repentance) But the conſequent is falſe; therefore ſo is the Antecedent.
It would be tedious and needleſs to the Intelligent, to heap up Scripture proof of the minor, viz. that the Goſpel preached before baptiſm, is appointed for an ordinary means of working true converſion. We ſee it was ordinarily done, elſe Preachers could not endeavor it, or hope or pray for it. The conſequence is manifeſt, in that Mr. Bl. makes this true juſtifying Faith, and conſequently true Repentance, to be not prerequiſite to baptiſm, but to be engaged for as to the future performance. And therefore regularly it muſt be only the word after Baptiſm that muſt truly Convert, or not at all.
Argu. 15. If Mr. Blakes Doctrine be true, then regularly it muſt be ſuppoſed that all perſons are in a ſtate of damnation immediately on their baptiſm; and if they then dyed, ſhould periſh. But the conſequent is falſe; therefore ſo is the Antecedent.
For the Conſequence; if Mr. Blake mean, that it is any ſpace of time after baptiſm that we engage to begin our juſtifying Faith in, then the conſequence is undenyable: for till then, the perſon is unjuſtified. But if he mean that in baptiſm they muſt engage to believe to Juſtification in the ſame inſtant of time, then this is to make ſuch Faith neceſſary in the inſtant of baptiſm; and this is but an evident vanity, to ſuppoſe a man not believing to juſtification, who yet can and muſt promiſe to do it in the ſame inſtant, or the next.
Argu. 16. If it be only true juſtifying Faith that gives men right coram Deo (by vertue of his Covenant) to the Sacrament of the Lords Sup…r▪ and ſo be prerequiſite to that Sacrament, and not only to be promiſed for …he future; then the ſame may be ſaid of baptiſm. But the Antecedent is true; therefore.
The conſequence is proved, 1. In that the Sacraments are both Seals of the ſame Covenant. 2. It is right to Church-priviledges in general that Mr. Bl. aſcribes to his Dogmatical Faith, and therefore to one Sacrament as well as the other. For the Antecedent, I think our brethren that would ſo fain keep the Church and Ordinances pure, would hardly admit a man to the Lords Table, that they were ſure did not take Chriſt for his Lord, or that would ſay, I believe all the Creed and Word of God, but I will not have Chriſt Reign over me at the preſent, but I promiſe that hereafter. I will ſee Doctor Drake againſt Mr. Humfrey, whether they would admit ſuch. Hierom argues thus, from Baptiſm, to the Adminiſtration of the Lords Supper: therefore I may do it as to the receiving▪ Quamobrem oro te utaut ſacrificandi ei licentiam tribuas cujus baptiſma probas, aut reprobes ejus baptiſma, quem non exiſtimas ſacerdotem. Neque enim fieri poteſt, ut qui in baptiſmate ſanctus eſt, ſit apud altare peccator. Hier. Dialog. adv. Luciferian.
Argu. 17. That Doctrine which feigneth an un-ſealed Covenant for giving right to the Seal of the Covenant of Grace, is unſound: But ſuch is Mr. Blakes; therefore.
No Scripture can be brought to prove ſuch an outward Covenant of Gods: And it is againſt the common reaſon and cuſtom of men, that a ſecond Covenant ſhould be drawn to convey right to the Seal of the firſt Covenant, ſeeing right to Covenant and Seal go together: and if there muſt be another Covenant to give right to that, then by the ſame reaſon there muſt be another to give right to that, and another to that, and ſo in infinitum.
To the Antecedent, it is apparent that Mr. Bl. diſtinguiſheth ex parte Dei, between the outward and the inward Covenant. It is probable that he thus diſtributes them from the bleſsings promiſed, whereof ſome are inward, and ſome outward: for though he explain not himſelf fully, yet I know no other ſenſe that it will bear. It is evident that his outward Covenant hath no Seal. For it is a Covenant de ſigillis conferendis. If therefore it have a Seal, it is either the ſame which is promiſed, or ſome other. Other I never heard of: they nowhere tell us what is the Seal of their outward Covenant. The ſame it cannot be: for the ſame thing cannot be the materia foederis or the Legacy it ſelf, or the benefit given, and the Seal too of that Covenant whereby it is given.
Argu. 18. That Doctrine which makes it the regular way in Baptiſm for all men to promiſe that which they can neither ſincerely promiſe nor perform, is unſound: but ſuch is Mr. Blakes, therefore.
The diſabilitie which I here ſpeak of, is not ſuch as is in a Godly man, to do any good without Chriſt and the Spirit, as is in the ſecond cauſe to act without the firſt: or in a partial cauſe, to act without its compartial: but ſuch as is in an unregenerate man to do the work of the Regenerate; or in any broken inſtrument, or diſabled agent, to do its own part of the work till it be altered, and made another thing, as it were. For the conſequence, it is evident in that, 1. No man ſhould ever perform Gods command concerning covenanting. 2. And no mans word were fit to be taken concerning the performance of his own Covenant. 1. Whether God may or do command ſome men, or all men, that which they have not abilitie to perform, is nothing to the point. For yet he gives ſome of them abilitie, and cauſeth them to perform it, when he makes it neceſſarie to ſalvation. But in this caſe God ſhould enable no man (regularly) to that Baptiſmal Covenant which he commandeth, nor ſhould any obey his command. For he commandeth them ſincerely to take him for their God, and promiſe to Love, Believe, and Obey him hereafter. (For to diſſemble, he commands none). But this no unrenewed Soul can do, or ever did to this day. They cannot reſolve it; therefore they cannot ſincerely promiſe it; and if juſtifying Faith muſt regularly begin after baptiſm (as being the great condition to which it engages, and not prerequiſite) then it is only unregenerate men that are the regular ſubjects of baptiſm. 2. And its plain that he who cannot ſincerely promiſe, (and therefore doth it diſſemblingly, or with a half heart) nor is able to perform his promiſe, is not to be credited. God himſelf never enableth an unregenerate man, to believe and repent ſavingly, while he is ſuch, in ſenſu compoſito: and therefore is it likely that it is ordinarily and regularly ſuch dead men that muſt Covenant to Repent and Believe to juſtification? Renewing Grace muſt intercede, which is not in their hand: how then can they promiſe to do the works of the truly Gracious. God may invite and command the dead to live, yea and to do the works of the living, becauſe he gave them life, and gives them means for revival. But I know not where he calls ſuch men to promiſe to do it: much leſs is the conſtant Baptiſmal Covenant ſuch.
Argu. 19. If the Diſtribution of the Church into viſible and inviſible, be but of the ſubject by divers Adjuncts, and not of a Genus into its Species, then that part, or thoſe members which are meerly viſible, are indeed no part or members of the Church ſo diſtributed, (but are only equivocally called a Church, Chriſtians, Church-Members, &c.) But the Antecedent is true; therefore.
The Antecedent is not only the common Doctrine of the Reformed Divines againſt the Papiſts, but is expreſsly affirmed by Mr. Blake in this his Book. The conſequence is undeniable, in that Adjuncts are no part of the Eſſence, much leſs the Form, or the whole Eſſence; and therefore cannot denominate, (but equivocally) inſtead of the Eſſence. Note, that viſibile is not the ſame with viſum.
Argu. 20. If the man without the wedding Garment, had coram Deo Right to be there, then would not the Lord have challenged him therein with a friend, how cameſt thou in hither, not having on a wedding Garment? If you will help him that was ſpeechleſs to an anſwer, and ſay for him, Lord, he was compelled to come in al thy command; I Reply, He that compelled him by invitation, did not only bid him come, but to come, not only to come in, but to come in as a Gueſt ſhould, to honor and not diſgrace the Feaſt. At leſt it ſhould have been known as implyed. It was no unrevealed thing.
Argu. 21. If Circumciſion were the Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, even a Juſtifying Faith already in being; then ſo is Baptiſm; but the former is certain, Rom. 4.11, 12. He received the ſign of Circumciſion, a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of the Faith, which he had yet being uncircumciſed: that he might be the Father of all them that believe, though they be not circumciſed, that Righteouſneſs might be imputed to them alſo. The laſt words confirm the conſequence alſo.
Argu. 22. Many texts of Scripture ſhew that it was Juſtifying Faith that was by God required in the aged in baptiſm: which I will cite together, and not ſtand to fetch an argument from each alone. Act. 2.38, 39. was before cited, verſe 41. It was they that gladly received the word that were Baptized. Act. 8.37. alſo, is before ſpoke to; It muſt be believing with all the heart. Mar. 16.15, 16. is very plain; firſt Chriſt commands them to preach the Goſpel: then he enacteth that on this preaching, He that believeth and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved. It is then a ſaving Faith. It is plain that Chriſt purpoſely putteth it before baptiſm, as its due place, even as that preaching to which Faith is here related is put before; and in that he gives us here the exact compendium of his new Law. And if it be not this ſaving Faith that goes before baptiſm, then Chriſt doth not ſo much as mention it. And to imagine that in this ſumme of his Covenant, he doth both leave wholly unmentioned that Faith which is the prerequiſite condition of Baptiſm, and alſo put in its place another Faith which is conſequential, this is to ſuppoſe Chriſt to clogg the moſt eſſential parts, and cleareſt compendiums of his Law, with ſuch inſuperable obſcurities that it cannot be underſtood. And ſay the like by all other Scripture, and you will make it more dark then the Papiſts accuſe it to be. Act. 16.31, 32, 33. The Jaylor asks what he ſhall do to be ſaved; Paul anſwers him, Believe in the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and thou ſhalt be ſaved and thy houſe; to which end, they ſpake to him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his houſe; and ſo, He was Baptized, believing in God with all his houſe. The Faith that Paul here commends to him, was a ſaving Faith expreſly: He that is ſaid to believe upon that command and inſtruction, is ſuppoſed to believe with the ſame faith that was ſo required of him, Act. 10.47, 48. The Gentiles there were not only true Believers, but had the Holy-Ghoſt before baptiſm, Act. 16.15. The Lord opened Lydias heart (which ſeems to ſignifie a ſpecial operation of the Spirit) before ſhe was baptized. Act. 18.8. Criſpus and all his houſe believed on the Lord, which ſignifieth more then an Hiſtorical Faith. So Act. 19.4, 5. It was believing on Chriſt, and in his name, that was the Antecedent to their baptiſm. Mat. 28.19. Go, Diſciple all Nations, baptizing them; that Diſcipling which is here commanded, is in order to go before baptiſm: but it is making men ſincere Diſciples that is here commanded; therefore. It is preſuppoſed, what ever Diſcipling it be, that it is not the Event, but the Endeavor that is here made their dutie. And if it be only common Diſcipleſhip, then the Apoſtles and other Preachers of the Goſpel, are not commanded to endeavor to make men true ſound Believers and Diſciples, till they had firſt baptized them, which is untrue. Moreover the Baptiſmal Faith, muſt be a Faith in Chriſts blood; for the application of the water ſignifieth the application of Chriſts blood; and therefore their reception of the one, ſignifieth the other: But Faith in Chriſts blood, is Juſtifying Faith, Rom. 3.25, 26. The Righteouſneſs of God which is by the Faith of Jeſus Chriſt, is unto all and upon all them that believe; Rom. 3.22. It is therefore but equivocally called believing in Chriſt, as being but ſome part of that belief, which attaineth not this Righteouſneſs. How many times over and over, do Chriſt and his Apoſtles promiſe pardon and ſalvation to all that believe in Chriſt, without diſtinction of believing? whence it ſeems evident, that it is but improperly and equivocally called Believing in Chriſt, which is not Juſtifying and ſaying. See Joh. 3.15, 16, 18. and 11.25, 26. and 7.38. and 12.46, 44. and 5.24. and 6.35, 40, 47. and 14.12. 1 Joh. 5.1, 5, 10. 1 Pet. 2.6. Rom. 9.33. and 4.5. and 10.11. Act. 13.48. Moreover, how eaſie is it to bring many Texts that prove that it was true ſaying Faith it ſelf that Chriſt and his Apoſtles preached to men, and endeavored to bring them to before baptiſm? Nay finde any one of them that ever did otherwiſe; whereas according to Mr. Blakes Doctrine, they ſhould have perſwaded them to a Dogmatical Faith only before baptiſm (I mean, to be before performed) and a juſtifying Faith after. But I will adde no more of this.
Argu. 23. The Church hath ever ſuppoſed baptized perſons to be ſaved; unleſs they afterward did violate that Covenant. Therefore they ſuppoſed them to have the condition of ſalvation, Faith and Repentance.
Hence thoſe high elogies of baptiſm in moſt of the Fathers, wherein they are now miſ-interpreted by many, as if they aſcribed it to the external ordinance, whereas they preſuppoſe, as the blood and Covenant of Chriſt, ſo the right qualifications of the partie baptized; upon which ſuppoſition (which we are bound to entertain of all that make a probable profeſſion) they did ſo predicate the glorious effects of Baptiſm, as well they might.
Argu. 24. Mr. Blakes Doctrine of Baptiſmal Faith, leaves us in utter obſcuritie, ſo that no man according to it, can tell whom to Baptize. He hath not (that I can finde) given us any deſcription of that Faith which entitles to baptiſm; and I verily think is not able to tell us what he would have himſelf to be taken for it. If it were a meer Dogmatical Faith, then thoſe ſhould be baptized that were utterly unwilling, or at leaſt unwilling to take God for their God, or Chriſt for their Lord and Saviour, and the Holy-Ghoſt for their Sanctifier; and ſhould openly profeſs, I will not have this man reign over me, for I cannot yet ſpare the pleaſure of my ſin. If Mr. Bl. mean that there is requiſite ſomewhat of the will and conſent, though not ſo much as to juſtifie; why did he not tell us what acts of the Will they be that are neceſſary? Is it only a conſent to have God called thei… God, and themſelves named his people? I will not be ſo uncharitable as to think that is his meaning; Is …t only a conſent to be baptized, and to hear the Word, and receive the Sacraments? then might it ſtand with the foreſaid diſclaiming of the Government of God and the Redeemer, and ſo of obedience. I think by that time Mr. Bl. hath but adventured to give us an exact definition or deſcription of that Faith which he makes prerequiſite and ſufficient to baptiſm (which I hereby intreat him to do) he will have ſet us up ſo fair a mark to ſhoot at, that with a very little skill it may be ſmitten to the duſt.
Argu. 25. 1 Joh. 2.19. They went out from us, but they were not of us: for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that it might be made manifeſt that they were not all of us. They were not therefore truly Chriſtians, Diſciples, Church-Members, but equivocally.
Argu. 26. I will end as I begun, with humane teſtimony. 1. Our Divines againſt the Papiſts, do generally plead that hypocrites are not true members of the univerſal Church, but as a woodden leg is to the body. I am loth to turn over books and tranſcribe without need, but I ſhall ſoon do it, if it be denied. 2. Our Divines againſt the Arminians, do ſuppoſe the firſt act of believing to be the firſt time that God is as it were engaged to man in the Covenant of Grace; and that it is dangerous to make God to be in actual Covenant with men in the ſtate of nature, though the conditional covenant may be made to them, and though he have revealed his decree for the ſanctifying his elect: but he is ſuppoſed to diſpence his mercies to the unregenerate freely, as Dominus abſolutus, or as Rector ſupra leges, and not by giving them a Legal or Covenant-right. And indeed, in my opinion, the Tranſition is very eaſie from Mr. Blakes opinion to Arminianiſm, if not unavoidable, ſave by a retreat, or by not ſeeing the connexion of the Conſequents to the Antecedent. For grant once that common Faith doth coram Deo give right to baptiſm, and it is very eaſie to prove that it gives right to the end of baptiſm, God having not inſtituted it to be an emptie ſign to thoſe that have true Right to it. And it will be no hard matter to prove that it is ſome ſpecial Grace that is the end of Baptiſm, at leſt Remiſſion of ſin. And ſo upon the good uſe of common Grace, God ſhould be in Covenant obliged to give them ſpecial Grace: which is taken for Pelagianiſm.