Right to Sacraments — Richard Baxter

Right to Sacraments · Richard Baxter

The fift Disputation.

De Nomine. Whether Hypocrites and other Unregenerate persons be called Church-members, Christians, Believers, Saints, Adopted, Iustified, &c. Univocally Analogically, or Equivocally?

Luke 14.26.

If any man come to me and hate not— his own life, he cannot be my Disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his Cross and come after me, cannot be my Disciple.

Vers. 33.

Whosoever he be that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my Disciple.

Gal. 5.24.

And they that are Christs have Crucified the Flesh, with the Affections and Lusts.

Rom. 8.9.

Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

1 Pet. 2.6, 7, 9, 10.

He that Believeth on him shall not be confounded—unto you which Believe he is pretious— Ye are a Chosen Generation, a Royal Priesthood, an holy Nation, a peculiar People, that you should shew forth the Praises of him who hath called you out of Darkness into his marvelous light: which in times past were not a people, but are now the people of God.

Rom. 6.16.

His Servants ye are, to whom you Obey.

John 12.26.

Where I am, there shall also my Servant be.

Ephes. 5.23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30.

— Christ is the Head of the Church, and he is the Saviour of the Body. As the Church is subject to Christ, so let Wives be to their own Husbands in every thing. Husbands love your Wives as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it: that he might sanctifie it, and cleanse it with the Washing of water, by the Word; that he might present it to himself a Glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinckle, or any such thing, but that it should be Holy and without blemish. — No man ever yet hated his own Flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the 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

Not transcribed in the source: missing, 6 pages.

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. Its 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. Its 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.) Its 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 praedicata Vnivoca, quia tributine candem rationem, licèt accidentariam, secundùm idem nomen, suis subjectis; ut Meurisse. For Scotus makes this difference in 1. Dist. 3. q. 3. & in 3. Dist. 7. q. 1. between univocè praedicuri, and esse pradicatum univocum, quòd illud sit praedicari secundum candem rationem essentialem univocatis: hoc verò sit praedicari secundum candem rationem accidentariam inferioribus. And as Paronyma, so Analoga are not media inter univo…um & aequivocum. Nam inter unum & multa nullum medium inveniri potest in rebus: ergo nec in vocibus inter, significare unum & multa, medium invenietur. At univoca & aequivoca opponuntur pones significare unum & multa: ergo inter ea nullum potest constitui medium. Si igitur nomes aliquod significat quidpiam unum multis commune, univocum est: si verò plura, aequivocum. Quare nullum est analogum quod sit simpliciter tale, sed vel est analogum univocum, vel analogum aequivocum: Analogum quidem univocum, si Ratio ejus una & eadē conveniat multis, cum ordine tamen ita ut priùs dicatur de uno quam de altero: v.g. ratio animalis respectu hominis & bruti, &c. ut Meurisse Metaphys. Scot. l. 1. p. 58, 59.

So Guil. de Rubione in 1 D…st. 3. q. 3. saith, Vnivocum opponi scli aequivoco, non verò analogo & denominativo: quia univocum se habet ad aequivocum, sicut unum ad multa: unum autem propriè solùm multis opponitur: se habet autem ad anal…gum & denominativum, sicut superius ad sua inferiora: quia univocum aliud est purum, aliud non purum: non purum est aut analogum aut denominativum: Nullum superius autem opponitur suis inferioribus. Itaque univocū non opponitur analogo & denominativo: sed ab analogo distinges tur tantùm univocum purum, & à denominativo univocum qui …ditativum, seu illud quod est & praedicatū univocū, & univocè praedicatur.

See also Posnaniensis in 1. Dist. 3. q. 1. act. 3. dub. 3. & Ocham. in 1. Dist. 2. q. 9. lit. E. denying tha… there is any Analogical praedication contra-distinct from Univocal and Equivocal. Lege Meurisse Metaph. l. 1. pag. 60, 61. &c. & pag. 110.111, 112, &c. & …hil. Faventin. in Philos. Natural. Scoti Theo…em. 95 pag. 654. usque ad 674. Vid. & Cajetani Opuscul. de Analog. nom. cap. 1. & 4. & 6. & Fonsecam 4. Metaphys. cap. 2. q. 2. sect. 3. &c. And so Porphyre gives it as the sense of Aristotle, that Ens aequivocè dicitur de primis decem generibus, c. de Specie: which Suarez expounding, saith, [Dicendum est ab antiquis autoribus Analoga sub aequivocis comprehendi, Suarez. Mer. Disp. 32. sect. 2. pag. 162.ut constat ex Aristot. in Anti…raed. c. 4. & ex Aug. in Categoriis, c. 2. & hoc significavit Aristot. locis infrā citandis de Anolog…a Entis, & praesertim 1 Elench. c. 6. ubi agens de aequivocis exempla ponit in Ente.]

So that if these be not mistaken, I may call the same term Analogical and Equivocal, yea and I must call it either Univocal or Equivocal when I have called it Analogical. To the same purpose have written R…da, Antonius Andreas, Francis. May…o, Trombetta, Pendasius, Bonettus, Joan. Canonicus, Scribonius in Pantalit. Raconisius and others. And Guil. Camerarius Scotus in Parte 3. Disput. Philosoph. select. maketh it his first question, and determineth it as all the Scotists, Nulla dari Analoga media distincta ab univocis & aequivocis, pag. 304.305, 306, 307. So Irenaus Brassavolus in Scoti universalia, q. 7. & 8. so that if this hold, the Opponents must prove that Hypocrites are Christians, Saints, Church-members, &c. univocally as well as Analogically, or else they will prove to be such but equivocally.

I know other Schoolmen are of another minde; and indeed they are of so many minds about the very sense of the word Analogum, and the true nature of Analogy, that it may well make us despair of a fair end of this Controversie. They are not so much agreed wherein it is that Analogy doth consist: some say that it consisteth in dependentia: and some (as Petr. Hurtado de Mendoza, Disput. Logic. 9. sect. 4. subject. 5.) in transcendentia, &c. Read but Hurtado himself of this, Disput. 9. from pag. 111. to 124. and see whether there be not opinions enough about Analogy, to warrant us to despair of a determimination of this Controversie, from the Consent of the Learned. Should I but tell you out of Tartaretus in 1. sent. dist. 3. qu. 3. and Rada, and others, of the threefold Univocation, Logical, Physical and Metaphysical, and the Description of each, and out of Francis. de Marchia of the four several degrees of Univocation, and many more distinctions which must be taken in, if we would exactly discuss this point, you will think before we have done that the Matter is not worth our pains. In a word, seeing our Controversie (as is said) is de nomine; and the Custom of Artists is the only Judge that can determine such Controversies, and they are here all in pieces among themselves, as much as about almost any one word in use with them, as far as I can remember, it followeth that Mr. Blake and I must stay for a decision till our Judges are agreed, what Analogy is.

For my own part, I make so small account of the Controversie, that where the term [Equivocal] offendeth any, as it doth Mr. Blake, I am very willing to let it alone, and to use the term [Analogical] which they can more patiently hear: I am loth we should quarrel about so small a matter. But because I am on the Defense, I shall yet briefly tell you, what Reasons I had to use the term [Equivocal] as well as [Analogical.]

And first I shall argue from the Definition to the Name; and secondly▪ from Authority.

And 1. We may here suppose what is commonly acknowledged, viz. that Vnivoca sunt quorum nomen est commune, & secundum nomen ratis sustantiae est cadem: Aequivoca verò quorum nomen est commune, & secundùm nomen ratio substantiae diversa. [Vbi [Ratio substantiae] denotat conceptvm objectivum, quisquis ille sit, vel substantialis, vel accidentalis: Et Conceptus objectivus semper accip…tur red…plicativè, in quantum significatur per nomen, & sic sumitur essentialiter: quia leoni ut albo essentialis est albedo. Igitur aequivoca hoc differunt ab univocis, quia his communis est & Vox, & Conceptus formalis & object vus: univoca enim sunt ipsa universalia, atque ità eisdem omnino verbis ac conceptibus constant quibus & illa: Aequivoca verò neque habent eundem conceptum formalem, neque objectivum, quia significata sunt omnino dissimilia in ratione significata per nomen, ut Hurtad, de Mendoz. Log. D…sp. 9. §. 1. But as he further noteth, They that hold that we do uno actu plura ut dissimilia cognoscere, must say also that, praeter nomen conceptus formalis est idem aequivocis, & differt ab univocis, quòd univoca habent eundem conceptum objectivum similem; secus verò aequivoca, quae habent plures dissimiles; item differunt in conceptu formali, quia aequivocus aequivalet pluribus, &c.

These things about the nature of Equivocals being supposed, I must next consider of the several terms now in question, and examine them hereby, as applyed to the Godly and the Wicked.

And first the Word [Church] in its general sense is not the thing that we have now in question: Otherwise I should soon confess that in all Assemblies there is something common: a Congregation of materials is common to them all. And thus it may as well be said that the word Ecclesia is univocally spoken of a mutinous confused tumult, Act, 19.32, 39, 40. or any other common Assembly; as of an Assembly of meer Professors. But it is a Christian Church than we are speaking of; which being Coetus Fidelium, vel Christianorum, is differenced from other societies by the Matter, and by the End. And for the first: If bare Professors are but equivocally called Christians or believers in Christ, then they are but equivocally Church-members, nor a Church as consisting of such, but equivocally a Church. But the antecedent is true, therefore so is the Consequent. The Consequence is undeniable, because it is not a Congregation or Society in general, but the Christian Church thus specified by its Matter and End, which we speak of, as is said. The Antecedent I prove, reducing the Paronyma into the Abstracts; and first of the term Believers: If Faith be but equivocally attributed to the bare Professors and the true Believers, then they are equivocally called Believers. But the Antecedent is true, as I prove thus: If the name of faith be the same, and the ratio substantiae secundum illud nomen, be divers, then faith ascribed to bare Professors and to true Believers is an aequivocum. But the Antecedent is true, as is most apparent: For that its the same name [Faith, Belief, Believers] we are agreed: And that it is not the thing in both that is thus named, I think we are also agreed. For in one sort, it is a true saving Faith, that is called by the name of [Faith]: and in the other, it is no faith at all, but the bare verbal Profession of that faith which they have not. And I hope we are agreed, that faith, and the Profession of Faith, are not the same thing.

Object. But though this hold as to bare Professors, or meer Hypocrites that have no faith, yet it will not hold of these that have a faith short of Justifying.

Answ. 1. It cannot be denied that bare Professors of saving Faith are visible members of the Church, though they have no faith at all; therefore it must be granted of all them, that they are but equivocally Believers, and of them is our question.

2. I have before proved, that it is this profession of a saving faith, that constituteth a visible member; and therefore all such and only such (with their seed) are visible members; and that it is not the reality of any faith (special or common,) that constituteth a visible member. For that which makes visible, must it self be visible: But so is neither a special nor a common faith: for no man knoweth it in another. So that à quatenus ad omne, à forma ad nomen, it is plain that all Professors and none but Professors are visible Members, and that if any have the Faith professed (special or common) that makes them not visible Members; but the profession of Faith whether they have it or not. So that it plainly followeth, that a visible Member, qua talis, is denominated a Believer only equivocally.

3. And if they be denominated Believers ab ipsa fide, scil. that which is short of Justifying, yet its plain that this faith it self is not the same with that of sound Believers; no not of the same species, Mr. Blake himself being Judge, who so keenly girds me for making saving and common faith to differ but in degree, when in the very writings that he must fetch the slander from, I again and again profess that they differ morally in f…ecie.) If then his lower faith and saving faith do so much differ, then there is not the same ratio substantiae secundum illud nomen: For I have not yet found that it is a Generical Nature common to both, which he supposeth signified by the word [faith] in our Question; much less that Church-membership is constituted by such a thing; But if he should come to that, I must first desire him to describe that Generical nature, and no more to lay it upon the specifical nature either of Dogmatical or Justifying faith; and when he hath so done, I doubt not to bring many more species that shall on as fair pretences put in for a place as participant in that generical nature, as his Dogmatical faith hath done.

So that by this it is evident, that not only the thing which constituteth men visible Church-members, (which is alwaies in the Adult, a Profession and not the Faith professed) is but equivocally called Faith; but also that the lower faith is equivocally called the Christian Faith. But the first alone sufficeth us to prove that visible Members as visible, are but equivocally called Church-members, because the ratio substantiae is divers, secundum illud nomen.

2. And it is as plain that bare Professors are but equivocally called Christians. For the Ratio nominis in found Christians is true Faith in Christ as Christ: but in the other it is only the Profession of such a faith: and these are certainly divers. And If you again carry the Question to Dogmatical Believers, I answer as before; both 1. That they are not the persons in our Question; 2. That as such, they are not members visible (no nor mystical.) 3. That even as to them the Ratio substantiae is so divers, as makes the name apparently equivocal.

3. The same also may be said of the word [Saints] Holiness in the Regenerate is the hearty Devotedness and Separation of the Person to God as God. Holiness in bare professors (who are visible Members,) is but the verbal Devotion and extrinsick Separation; And Holiness in the common Believer, is but a half Devotedness and Separation, and wanteth the Essentials which the Regenerate have So that it is not the same thing that is called Holiness in these …hree▪ and therefore the word Hol…ness as to them is equ…v…c…l▪

4. The same also I say of Regeneration: The true Believeer is called Regenerate, because he is so changed by the spirit, as to be as it were born again, not of flesh, nor of the wiil of man, but of God, and is become a new creature: but the bare Professor is called Regenerate, only because he is baptized, and professeth Regeneration, and is entered extrinsecally into a new society. And the lower sort of Believers is said to be regenerate, but only because he hath some common work of another species: so that Regeneration is equivocally spoken of these.

5. So also is Justification: Its clear that it is not the same thing that is called Justification in the one sort and in the other, as I suppose will be confessed.

6. The same also I may say of Adoption as is undeniable.

7. And the same I may say of being in Covenant with God. For 1. ex parte Dei, with the Regenerate God is actually in Covenant, that is, as it were obliged to them: but to the rest it is but conditionally, which will induce no actual Obligation, or Debitum, till the Condition be performed. 2. And on their own part, the regenerate are said to Covenant with God, principally because they consent to his terms, and heartily Accept his Covenant, as it is; which Scripture calleth sometime their Believing, (If thou believe in thy heart, &c.) and sometime their Willing: (whosoever will, let him drink of the waters of Life freely): so that the Regenerate mans Covenating is alwaies with the Heart,) and comprehendeth all the Essentials); and sometime with the Mouth also: But the bare Professors Covenanting is but with the mouth alone; and the lower Believers is wanting in the internal Essentials: so that it is plain, that it is not the same thing that is called [Covenanting] in them: and therefore the word is equivocal.

And then by this it is put out of doubt that they are equivocally called Church members: Because the things forementioned that constitute their Church-membership are not the same.

If any Papist should here set in, and with Bellarmine plead, that it is Profession and Engagement to Church Politie that constituteth all Members, and that the Church in its first notion signifieth only the visible Body, and that Faith and Holiness, or any thing intrinsick is not necessary to make a Member, but only to ma…e a living Member; 1. I shou…d desire such to be at the pains to see what our D…vines, Amesius, Whitaker, and abundance more, have said already to shew the vanity of this, yea and its self-contradiction. 2. Were it not done by so many already, I would shew such from many Scriptures and Fathers, that the word [Church] in our Christian sense doth principally signifie the number that are cordially congregate unto Christ, and united to him. 3. But whomsoever the word is first applyed to, it is certain if it be applyed to both, that it is equivocal: unless you will say, that it signifieth some Generical nature in common to both: which cannot be as is aforesaid; and if it were granted, 1. It would exclude the spiritual aggregation to Christ to be the Ratio nominis, contrary to Scripture; and 2. It would exclude all Saints that have not the opportunity of a visible profession and conjunction with the Visible Body, from being of the Church, and so from Salvation; Or 3. It would make two Churches specifically distinct, which both Papists and Protestants do so vehemently disavow.

Having thus given my Reasons from the common description of Equivocals, and the nature of the things, why I say that meer Professors, and consequently visible Members as such, are but equivocally called Believers, Christians, Saints, Members, &c. I shall next come to Authority, and enquire what is the Custom of Divines in this case, seeing that Custom is so much the master of Speech: and it is only Protestant Divines that I shall alledge, because it is for the sake of Protestants that I write, to disswade them from siding with the Papists in this point: For between them and us it is so antient and well known a Controversie, that with men that are exercised in such Writings, my allegations will be needless: but for the sake of some confident men, that have derided the common …ssertions of Protestant; against Papists, as if they were singularly mine I shall annex some of the words of our most esteemed Writers by which these men may discern the minds of the rest; wishing that such men would rather have been at the pains to have read the Authors themselves, than to suffer their passions and tongues to over-run their understandings.

1. Calvin in 1 Cor. 12.Calvin. 1.[His interea duobus ep th…tis declarat quinam habendi sint inter vera Ecclesiae membra, & qu… ad ejus Communionem pr priè pertineant: Nisi enim vitae sanctimoniâ Christianum te ostendas, delitescere quidem in Ecclesiâ poteris, sed ex eá tamen n…n eris. Sanctificari ergò in Christo o…ortet omnes qui in populo Dei censeri volunt. Porrò …anctificationis verbum s…gregation in sign…ficat; ea sit in nobis quum per spiritum in vitae novitatem regeneramur, ut serviamus Deo & non Mundo.— Unà cum omnibus invoc. — Et hoc commune est piorum omnium Epitheton — Quod exponunt quidam de solâ Professione, mihi frig… dum videtur, & ab usu Scripturae alienum est.]

Idem Institut. lib. 4 cap. 1. sect. 7 [De Eccl…siâ visibili & qué sub cognitionem nostram cadit, quale judicium facere conveniat, ex superioribus …am l…quere existimo: Diximus enim bifariam de Ecclesiâ Sacras Literas loqui. Interdum quum Ecclesiam nominant, tam intelligunt quae reverâ est coram Deo; in quam nulli recipiuntur n…si qui Adoptionis gratiâ filii Dei sunt, & spiricûs sanctificatione vera Christi membra. — Saepe autem Ecclesiae nomine universam hominum multitudinem in orbe diffusam designat, quae unum se Deum & Christum colere profitetur. — In hâc autem plurimi sunt permixti hypocritae, qui nihil Christi habent praeter titulum & speciem, plurimi ambitiosi, avari, invidi, maledici, aliqui impurioris vitae, qui ad tempus tolerantur; vel quia legitimo judicio convinci nequeunt, vel quia non semper ea viget disciplinae veritas quae debebat.]

2. Beza in Confess. Christ. fid. p. 34. c. 5. sect. 8.2. Beza. & in Eccles. …st Hom. 24 pag. 470, 471. & Annotat. in 1 Tim. 4.1. …untur crede…e, …òd c…edere vl… antur. [De veris Ecclesiae membris.] Vera sunt Ecclesia membra qui characterem illum habent Christianorum proprium, id est, fidem. Fidelis autem aliquis ex eo agnoscitur, quòd unicum Servatorem Jesum Christum agnoscit, fugit peccatum, & studet Justitiae, ídque ex praescripto Verbi Dei. — Nam quod ad rel quos homines attinet, cujuscunque tandem sint statû… vel conditionis, non sunt numerandi inter Ecclesiae membra, etiam si ut ità loquar) Apostolatu fungerētur. Sed hîc cav…ndum est nè vel ulteriùs progrediamur quàm par sit, vel temerè judicemus: expectandum enim est Dei judicium in detegendis hypocritis, & falsi fratibus. — Et pag. 32. sect. 2. he shews [unam duntaxat esse veram Ecclesiam;] and therefore he speaks here of that one Church.

3. Junius in his most accurate Tractate de Ecclesiâ (Vol. 2. p. 998.) saith,3. Junius. [Ecclesia absolutè dicta in Divinis, appellatur Coetus eorum quos Deus evocat è natura & modulo naturali ipsorum per gratiam indignitatem filiorum Dei ad gloriam ipsius. — Justam Ecclesiae formam adscripsimus — Vecatur à Deo quisquis ad Ecclesiam pertinet è natura & modulo naturali suo: quá autem? per gratiam supernaturalem, & viam illius gratiae; & quo tandem? in statum supernaturalem apud Deum in coelis —]

Et pag. 1014. speaking of the matter of the political Church, Non videtur satis explicata definitio illa — nisi vocem illam [fidelium] aequivocè acceperis — non eos solum oportet intelligamus, qui verè sunt fideles, non eos solum qui professione externâ prae se ferunt, licet animo & corde non sint: sed utrosque communiter, loquutione planè aequivoâ, non tamen insolente planè, quia utrique saltem conveniunt in nomine, quamvis toto genere secundùm rem & veritatem differant.]

Et pag. 1115 1116, 1117. Animadvers. in Bellarm. he saith, [23. Ibid. Nomen fidelis accipi pro eo qui fidem publicè profitetur.] Nempe aequivocè & secundùm quid, putà rationem externam ipsius, ut pictura hominis dicitu… homo.

24. Art. 27. [Vocari Chatolicos qui fidem Catholicam profitentur, quicquid sit de fide internâ.] Aequivocè igitur, ut proximè dictum.

25. Art. 28. [Christianus enim nomen est Professionis.] Negatur haec tota Responsio: Nam Patres quum dicerent, verè Christiannos, intelligebant secundùm formam internam Christiani, quae per severa est, Christianismus verus. Nam qui solâ professione sunt Christiani; ii verè quidem de Ecclesia sunt secundùm rationem externam illius: non autem secundum internam illam in quâ est Christianismi veritas. Christianum autem nomen Professionis esse nullus homo negat: sed nomen esse negamus professionis solùm, nisi aequivocè: Nam & Clemens Alex. definit strom. 7. nomen sensus, sidei, & cultus & prof…ssionis est.

Cap. 11.3. Art. 2. Vera Ecclesia non esset illa quae dicebatur Ecclesia, sed pii quidam pauci.] Haec Lutherus rectè de Ecclesia justa secundùm partes essentiales ipsius considerata, id est, formam internam externámque ipsius simul formaliter & materialiter in membris ipsius. Nam Papa & qui sunt ipsius, in Ecclesia sunt materialiter, ut Ecclesiae foreign, non Ecclesia sunt; qui autem in Ecclesi… sunt materialiter atque formaliter, ii vera Ecclesia s…nt, essensi dísque. Ecclesia autem vera quidem est quae utrosque quidem complectitu…, ut rete pices bonus & malos: sed quae membra sunt illius, non omnia vera sunt illius formaliter: sed quaedam vera materialiter, formaliter aequivoca. Hoc itaque respectu Ecclesia in membris suis considerata, dicitur ex parte vera, & ex parte non vera: quemadmodum meta aut strues messis dicitur triticum, quae considerata in suis partibus verum habet triticum & paleam, quae non est verum triticum, sed palea tritici & ipsum cont…gens. Vtrumque simul Ecclesia: sed illi materialiter atque formaliter, id est, essentialiter; isti materialiter solum, id est, aequivocè. Verum autem, figurato, & aequivocè dicto etiam opponitur.]

6. Ibid. [Distinguunt duas E…clesias.] Falsum. Non duas Ecclesias numero statuunt, sed unam numero Ecclesiam duplicem esse modo & ratione dicunt pro conditione membrorum ipsius, cum alia sint vera formaliter, eoque essentialia Ecclesiae membra: alia materialiter solū, ac proinde aequivocè dicta. Atque hoc respectu postea membrorum contemplatione veram Ecclesiam vocant, numerum eorum qui membra sunt Ecclesiae verè & essentialiter; falsam verò eorum, qui membra sunt Ecclesiae materialiter solum atque aequivoce. Hoc autem quisquis verum esse negat, solem meridie lucere negat, & bis duo esse quatuor. (if I had spoken so confidently —) So pag. 1113.20. Art. 31. [Non essent membra Corporis viva.] Id autem est, non esse membra Ecclesiae secundùm partem rationémque formalem, sed secundū materialem ac cōmunem ipsius, ut ante.

22. Art. 15. [In nullo horum locorum distingui duas Ecclesias.] Quasi verò cum ipsâ veritate, cum arte, cum ratione pugnet quisquis distinguit aequovocationes.

So pag. 1112.12. Art. 17. [Ex priore multi membra & sancti dicuntur aequivocè, quia membra sunt tantum materialiter: ex posteriore autem sancti propriè appellantur atque formaliter.]

I hope here's enough to signifie Junius his mind.

4. Zanchius in Tract. de Eccles. Vol. 3. cap. 2. p. 56.4. Zanchius. [3. Si Ecclesia latius accipiatur pro Ecclesiâ Militante, quatenus etiam reprobi multi & hypocritae ibi connumerantur licet non sint verè de Ecclesia, nec Ecclesia, nec partes Ecclesi…—quae licet mixtos habeat reprobos & hypocritas multos, existentes quidem in Ecclesia, cum tamen (ut d xi) sint neque Ecclesia, neque partes Ecclesiae, &c. —Et pag. 58. [Hypocritae vero et si sint in Ecclesia, non tamen sunt partes Ecclesiae, neque verè ad Eccl…siam pertinent. Ecclesia enim est Sponsa Christi, corpus Christi unde Augustinus dicere solet roprobos in Ecclesia multos esse, non tamen de Ecclesia — Sunt in Ecclesia sicut palcae in frumento, quae ita sunt in frumento, ut non sint tamen frumentum, nec partes frumenti, sicut comparavit Christus Ecclesiam Mat. 23. Sunt sicut zizania inter frumentum ab hoste superseminata. Zizaria autem non sunt frumentum, nec partes frumenti. Videntur quidem reprobi hypocritae qui sunt in Ecclesia, ad tempus esse etiam de Ecclesia; quamdiu scilicet ab ea non deficiunt, & cum aliis Evangelium profitentur, &c. — cum ventilantur ventilabro irae Diuinae, vel deficiunt — patefaciunt se nunquam fuisse membra Ecclesiae, cum proprium membrorum Ecclesiae sit, semper in Ecclesia permanere — Reprobi saepe videntur insiti, & tamen non sunt: vi lentur esse membra Ecclesiae, & nihil minus sunt. Ratio, quoniam soli electi, & vera Christi membra, sunt Ecclesia Christi.

Read him to the same purpose, pag. 73.77.

Et in de Relig. Christian. Fid. cap, 23. Thes. 6. p. 345. [Reprobos hypocritas, licèt sint in Ecclesia, de Ecclesia tamen non esse. — Membra sunt Satanae, non Christi. Read the rest there: So again, pag. 535, 536.

5. Polanus Syntagm. Theol. l. 7. cap 1.2, 3, 5.5. Polanus. ha…h a long Dispute against Bellarmine, to prove that none but the Elect and truly sanctified are members of the Catholick or Universal Church: I shall refer you to the Book, to save the labour of transcribing And pag 522. col. 1. He reckoneth this among Bellarmine's Errors as the sixth: [Quod impios quidem n…gat esse viva corporis Christi membra, at intera statuit esse mortua membra corporis Christi. At 1. embiguitate ludau…: Nam membra corporis Christi vel foreign sunt vel foreign. Deinde si de membris Christi foreign sermo sit, falsa est distributio quaedam membra Christi-esse viva, quaedam mortua, Vt enim in vivo corpore naturali — &c.] So pag 521. col. 1. he saith, that only the justified are called the sons of God foreign, and others only foreign. And col. 2. he saith the like of their Saintship. [Et hic tertius est istius ratiocinationis error. Sancti enim foreign dicuntur: Propriè quidem soli santificati spiritu adoptionis: Impropriè vero & foreign ii qui sanctam fidem Christi ore profitentur, licet non sint spi…itu s…ncto s…nct…ficati.

6. Ravenellus Bibliothec. pag. 510.511. saith,6. Ravannellus. [Vox Ecclesiae ambiguè sumitur: Propriè & strictè pro coetu illorum hominum quos Deus ante jacta mundi fundamenta elegit, & in tempore efficaciter voc…t, &c. vel Impropriè, &c.

And having cited many Texts to prove that Electi & Fideles sunt Membra & corpus Christi, he addeth [Quod nota contra Pontificios, qui docent ipsos reprobos & sceleratos ad Ecclesi…m propriè dictam etiam pertinere.

7. Peter Martyr in 1 Cor. 1.2. p. 5.7. Pet. Martyr. defineth the Church thus; [Esse dicemus, coetum credentium ac renatorum quos Deus in Christo colligit per Verbum & Spiritum sanctum, &c. — Nam illi (sancti) solùm verè & coram Deo sunt de Ecclesia. Quae alioquin habet admixtos permultos alienos a Chr…st…: & hi specie tantum, no… reipsa pertinent ad Ecclesiam. Et Paulus postquam dixisset, hoc loco [Ecclesi…e Dei, per oppositionem adjunxit [sanctificatis per Christum Jesum, vocatis sanctis] ut intelligamus impios ad Ecclesiam revera non pertinere, licet in ea perpetuo versentur. — Scio commentum circumferri, quod impii membra Christi sunt, verum mortua; quae tamen vivificari possiat. At hoc ita est verum, at si mortuum hominem dixeris hominem esse — sed in praesentiâ id tantummodo contendimus, tales homines reipsa & quo ad Deum, non esse partes Ecclesiae.

So on Rom. & Loc. Commun. he hath much of the like. Indeed Loc. Com. Clas 4. c. 1. p. 741. he hath the very same words over again at large, which I have cited from him on 1 Cor. 1.2.

8. Musculus Loc. Com. de Eccles. p. (mihi) 655.8. Musculus. Porro cum Scripturâ docet esse Ecclesiam Corpus Christi, an non satis manifestè significat, Ecclesiam Christi non esse eorum qui inter membra Christi recenseri non p…ssunt? Sum quidem in externae professionis societate quamplurimi mali; atque hactenus in Ecclesia: verùm de Ecclesia non sunt, quia verae Ecclesiae membra non sunt: Aliud est esse in externa Christianorum societate; & aliud pertinère ad internam, quae spiritus est & fidei, quâ Caput & Corpus & membra cum membris spiritualiter & veraciter communicant. Aliud (inquam) est esse in Ecclesia, & aliud esse de Ecclesia.] And he citeth that of Austine (as many other Protestants do) l. 2. contra. Crescon. c. 21. [At per hoc etiam nesciente Ecclesia, propter malam pollutámquae conscientiam damnati a Christo, jam in Corpore Christi non sunt, quod est Ecclesia: quoniam non potest Christus membra damnata habere.] See him on Mat. 3. p. 33.

2. Rutherford's Pe…ceable Plea, 9. Rutherford.pag. 93. c. 9. [4. Dist. If a true Church and a visible Church, as visible, may not for a time be opposed by way of contradiction, &c.] Pag. 96. [Separatists Arguments must be weak, for they all conclude that which we deny not, and no other thing, to wit, that Heretick, Adu…terers, Sorcerers, Blasphemers, be no parts of Christs visible Church, as it is a Church: Yea, we may say that as the tree-leg, and the eie of glass, and the teeth of silver by Art put in the body, are no members of the living body, so neither, are these members of the true Church, and so much do all our Divines, as Calvin, Beza, Junius, Whitaker, Tilen, Piscator, Pareus, Vrsine, Trelcatius, Sibrandus, Amesius prove against Papists.

Pag. 107. A Church, and a visible Church, may be opposed by way of contradiction, as a number of Believers, and a number of non-Believers. For a Church essentially is a number of …elievers, and Christs mystical Body, else it is not a Church &c.

Pag. 114. The Church visible as a Church, is indeed Christs Body, a royal Priest-hood, a chosen Generation; but as visible, it is sufficient that it be a Royal Priest-hood only by Profession, &c. Our Adversaries give us no right description of the true natural and lively members of the true visible Church: he that would give such a definition of a man, as agreeth both to a living man, and to a pictured or painted man, were but a painted Logician. —

Pag. 173. — Although the Parents indeed, as concerning any real union of faith, be plain strangers to the Covenant, and members of the Church only, as an arm of wood is a member of the body. — See him also in his Due Right of Presby…eries, chap. 9. sect. 9. pag. 256.257.259.

10. Maccovius Colledg. Theolog. Part. 4. Disp. 13. Thes. 3, 4. &c.10. Maccovius. [Haec Ecclesia jam dicitur visibilis, jam invisibilis: Quae distinctio non eo spectat, ut statuantur duae Ecclesiae, &c. —sed est haec distinctio nominis, ut loquuntur in Scholis — 7. Et hinc jam liquere potest quomodo Ecclesia visibilis sit & invisibilis: visibilis nempe confusè, dum in socictate illâ, quam definivimus, credimus esse electos aliquos, etiamsi qui illi sint non novimus scientia perfecta, sed conjecturali duntaxat. 21. Notae ergo Ecclesi…e ad hoc nobis ser viunt, non ut sciamus distinctè qui pertineant ad Eccle siam, sed ut sciamus quibuscum nobis colenda sit communio, seu publica, seu privata; nempe cum illi, quibus illa insunt, unde judicio charitatis colligi possit, eos veram esse Ecclesiam, vel pertinere ad veram Ecclesiam.

11. Cocceïus de S. Scriptur. Potent. p. 575.11. Cocceius. [Quod attinet coetū sive multitudinem vocatorum, saltem Verbisono, & Christi fidem profitentium, eam vocamus Ecclesiam, partim propter fideles, qui in eò sunt, partim propter spem. Charitas en…m omnia sperat. Eo modo sanctos etiam promiscuè appellamus qui se Christianos nominant, & in quibus non deprehenditur a nobis hypocrisis, &c. — Imoratione fidelium tota multitudo appellatur Ecclesiae.

Et pag. 555. [In Majore Ecclesiâ Vniversalis visibilis significat, (si vera est Propositio) omnes p…ofitentes Nomen Christi, & in coetus ubique locorum collectos: inter quos sine dubio sunt fideles: Propter quos illa multitudo vocatur, Ellclesia Dei.

Pag. 649. [Ecclesiae statum in his comp…ehendi certum est sed bonos & malos simul Ecclesiam a Christo dici, atque adeo Ecclesiam ex malis constare, quomodo fratres pergunt loqui num. 52. nentiquam admittimus. Licet admittamus multitudinem illam profi…entium, in quâ & Ziz…nia, vel Zinecdochicè, vel prop…er spem fidelium, vel etiam propter gloriationem om…ium, di…i Ecclesiam; & Zizania esse in Ecclesia, quia bonis mali perm…xti sunt: ut & Antichristus sessurus erat in Templo Dei, hoc est Ecclesia, nempe inter fideles, & in congregationem Justorum, ipse infidelis & injustus omnibus myriadibus suis stipatus, &c. Vid. ultr.

12. Luther. Tom. 4. p. 333, 342. ut in Loc Commun. Class. 5. cap. 4. pag. 12.12. Luther. [Hypocritae volunt Ecclesia esse, & non sunt, quia non cognoscunt Ecclesiae thesaurum, scilicet Christum; Pii verò cognoscunt, & taemen non videntur esse Ecclesia, sed manent absconditi coram mundo: Ita stat illud argumentum a principio mundi; Ecclesia non est Ecclesia: Et, Non Ecclesia est Ecclesia. Ergo nihil nos moveat, si impii jactent se esse Ecclesiam, & non possunt intelligere — See him also de Conciliis towards the end, de Ecclesia.

13. Sutlive, 13. D…. Sutlive.contr. Bellarm. de vera Eccles. p. 6.7. c. 2. [Non aliter coalescunt & augentur membra Ecclesiae nisi per Char…tatem, nec aliter vivunt quam per Spiritum sanctum; nec aliquis meritò in Ecclesiae catalogo recensetur qui non studet sanctitati: Est enim Ecclesia non sceleratorū & improborum, sed sanctorum communio, &c. — In hâc tamen sanctorum societate, non negamus multos versari & hypocritas & sceleratos, qui nihil habent hominis Christiani praeter nomen. — Non tamen propterea censemus deserendam esse fratrum societatem quia inter eos sunt nonnulli homines scelerati & impii, qui non sunt verè Ecclesiae membra.] Next he reprehendeth Bellarmine for not admitting the various acceptions of the word Ecclesia: And reciting his definition, he addeth, [Cujus d…finitionis tot sunt peccata quot vocabula. Nam primò, ut quis sit membrum Ecclesiae, non tantum requiritur fidei professio, sed etiam ipsa fides. Non est enim Ecclesia societas profitentium fidem, sed credentiū, nisi velit ille fideles mentiri, quando dicunt, Credo in Deum; & sine fide nemo ad Deum accedit, nemo fit mēbrum Corporis Christi. — His fift Chapter is to prove that no Reprobates belong to the Catholike Church, and he concludeth fol. 17. col. 2. [Sic neque reprobi, quantumvis videantur Christiani, vera erunt Ecclesiae membra. — His sixth Chap. is to prove against Bel. that wicked & unconscionable livers are not true members of the Catholike Church and communion of Saints, Fol. 19. he saith, [Aristoteles negat mortuum membrum, esse membrum. Quae autem aequivocè dicuntur membra, non magis sunt membra, quam homo pictus est homo rationalis — And because he so effectually pleadeth this Cause, I will recite the substance of his Arguments. Argum. 1. Qui spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est ejus: At qui sceleratò vivunt, non habent spiritum Christi: meritò ergo tales existimamus non esse vera membra Christi. 2. Omnes pii ab hominibus impuris & sceleratis animo & moribu… recedere debent. — At a fratribus & membris veris Ecclesiae discessionem facere nefas est —ergo. — 3. Omnes Christiani sunt velut unus panis & unum Corpus: At panis non fit nisi ex uno frumento, non ex paleis, & Corpus non consistit ex membris dissentientibus inter se. — 4. Totum Corpus Christi incrementum ex eo capit per Charitatem. At homines impuri & selerati non habent charitatem, &c. — 5 Non modo Ecclesia Dei, sed omnia ejus membra sunt Templum Dei, & in eis habitat Spiritus sanctus. At ubi regnat peccatum, ibi non est Templum Dei, &c.— 6. Christus est Caput Ecclesiae, & ipse est servator Corporis sui: & tradidit se pro ea ut illam sanctificaret, &c.— At Christus non est hominum impurorum aut sceleratorum caput. Totum enim Corpus ex Christo Capite per nexus & conjunctiones subministratum & constructum crescit in augmentum Dei, non servat homines in peccatis stupidos, &c. 7. Quiverè in Ecclesiam tanquam membra in Corpus inferuntur, coelestis Vocationis fiunt participes, Hebr. 3. justificantur, Rom. 8. & spiritum Dei habent. At homines isti, &c.— 8. Ecclesia dicitur puteus aquarum viventium. At homines flagitiosi & magni peccatores in peccatis mortui sunt. — Non sunt ergo ex Ecclesia: quod August. ex loco colligit lib. 5. de Bapt. contr. Donatist cap. 27.— 9. In filios Ecclesiae illa quadrant quae dicit Apostolus, Rom. 6. Liberati à peccato, servi autem facti Deo, fructum habetis vestrum in sanctificationem, finem vero vitam aeternam. At hominibus improbis, &c. 10. Cives Ecclesiae in Scripturis vocantur sancti, 2 Cor. 1.2. — Quare nisi homines impuri & flagitio si possint vere dici sancti, non possunt homines ejusmodi propter externam suam professionem vera Ecclesiae membra censeri.— 11. Ecclesia Christi tota est pulchra, 2 Cor. 11. virgo casta. At, &c. — 12. In Symbolo dicitur Ecclesia sancta, & sanctorum communio. At si homines scelerati & impuri vera essext Ecclesiae membra, tum sanctitatis denominationem amitteret, & esset non sanctorum communio, sed sceleratorum colluvies, quod planè impium est vel dicere vel cogitare. (See his Replies to Bellarmine's Answers,) — 13. Ecclesia supra petram a dificata est, & porte inferorum aduersus eam non sunt praevaliturae. At contra peccatores portae inferorum praevalent. — 14. Ecclesia dicitur plenitudo sen complementum Corpor… Christi. At— 15. Ecclesia est columna & firmamentum veritatis. At improbi non pertinent ad hanc columnam, &c.— 16. Disertè Scripturae excludunt ex sancta civitate homines impuros & sceleratos (Here some Texts are cited. — 17. Qui ex patre Diabolo sunt, non habent Deum patrem, 1 Joan 2. At homicidae & scelerati.— At si ex Deo non sunt, non possunt inter Ecclesia membra numerari— 18. Ab Autoritate patrum: where he citeth Cyprian, Origen, Hierom, Ambrose, Ruffinus, Gregory, Epiphanius, Augustine, Chrysostom, Theophilact, Bernard, &c. — 19. Arg. A consensu & testimonio totius Ecclesiae Catholicae ducitur. Recitantes enim Symbolum Apostolorum, omnes Christiani profitentur se credere sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam, Sanctorum Communionem. — 20. Arg. Ab Adversariorum confessione (of which more anon.)

And six Reasons he addeth fol. 24. col. 2. And fol. 25. he refuteth Bellarmines Arguments for the contrary, (the same that others since make use of) from Scripture and Reason. Where Bellarmine saith, They cannot be cast out of the Church by Excommunication, if they be not in it; he answereth, [Si Fide & Charitate & Spiritu sancto careant, tum licet vel Praelatorum sedes occupent, vel in Ecclesiae catalogo censeantur, non tamen sunt vera membra Ecclesiae. Nec ad rem facit quod Christus malis Praelatis obaudiendum docet: Hoc en…m sit, quia tales adhuc videntur esse in Ecclesiae—Of a Councils testimony produced by Bellarmine he saith, [Licet Concilium quoddam Et iscoporum in colloq. cum Donatistis fateatur malos esse nonnunquam in Ecclesia velut paleas in area,— non tamen asserit hujusmodi malos esse vera membra Ecclesiae, sed ostendit quid vulgus existimat.

I know the answer to all this must be, that Dr. Sutlive speaks all this only of the Catholick mystical Church, and not of the Visible Church. To which I Reply, 1. He and other Protestants profess, that they hold not that there is two Churches, one Visible and the other Invisible; but one Church, only. 2. And that this one is called Invisible from its essence, and Visible from an adjunct, which is so. 3. And therefore that where there is Profession without true faith, and so men that have only that which denominateth it Visible, without that which denominateth it Invisible, these are only equivocally and not truly members.

Hear further what Sutlive saith of this, fol. 25. [Hinc ergo cadit calumnia illa Adversarii, quasi nos faceremus duas Ecclesias. Vnā enim nos facimus Ecclesiam Catholicam, quae tantum bonos continet, licet mali in ea conseantur, quia non omnes certo norunt esse malos. At Bellarminus revera duas facit Ecclesias, unam ex bonis tantum, — alteram ex malis & bonis, & aliquando ex malis tantum. Nam ad Ecclesiae formam constituendam nullam putat requiri intornam virtutem.—

And fol. 26. answering to Bellarmines Arguments from the Fathers, he saith of Nazienzen, [Nullus dixerit eum existimâsse hujusmodi homines vera esse membra Ecclesiae. Loquitur enim de Ecclesiae militantis parte; (that is of the particular Church of Constantinople) ídque secundùm vulgi sententiam, & non secundùm veritatem; & ubi proprie loquitur Moabitas & Ammonitas licet in mysteria nostra irrumperent, distinguit à veris Christianis]

Cap. 7. He proves that Infidels and Hereticks (though occult) are not vera Ecclesiae membra. And fol. 27. col. 2. he saith, [Vt agamus de forma Ecclesiae, ubi potius essentialis ejus forma posita est, quàm in fide Christi interna? Forma enim illa substantialis est, & non accidentalis; Ecclesiaeque dat esse, & vere demonstrat quis ad Ecclesiam pertineat. At confessio fidei externa non magis demonstrat Ecclesiam, ejusque partes, quam tabula picta hominis naturam. —

Licet ad Ecclesiam admittantur qui profitentur fidem, ut dicit Bellarm. non tamen sequitur eos fieri vera Ecclesiae membra, nisi habeant etiam fidem quam profitentur. Neque enim civis est qui pro cive se gerit, licet aliqui ita putent, sed qui revera Jus habet civitatis.

Fol. 28. Praeterea nos ostendimus, excludi omnes ex Ecclesia Catholica, tanquam membra non vera, sed ficte adnascentia, qui non habent charitatem; & hoc Catholicorum omnium testimonio confirmavimus; adeo ut jam constet Bellarminum esse Monachum, à Christi Ecclesia extraneum, & non Catholicum: (I desire the contrary-minded of our Brethren to mark what a heavy censure I must fall under, if I should turn to their opinion.)

Fol. 29. Nulli ferè haeretici non se Christianos esse pro…ntur: eos tamen Chrysostomus ex Ecclesia excludit. Nam non nomen, sed veritatem, facere Christianum.]

Many Arguments he here useth, of which I will recite only the last, fol. 30. col. 2. [Si Fides non minùs requiritur quam Baptismus ut quis fiat membrum Ecclesiae; cur magis sit membrum Ecclesiae qui profitetur se fidem tenere & non tenet, quam qui profitetur se baptismum habere & non habet?]

They that will read the rest may see much more to the same sense: but I find I have staid long enough on one Witness.

14. Amesius Medul. Theol. lib. 1. cap. 32.11.14. Amesius. [Illi autem qui professione tantum sunt sideles, dum remanent in illa societate, sunt membra illius Ecclesiae, sicut etiam Ecc…esiae Catholicae, quoad statum externum tantum, non quoad statum internum aut essentialem, 1 Joan. 2. ver. 19.]

Et in Bellarm. Enervat Tom. 2. lib. 2. c. 1.3. confuting Bellarmines calumny, that feigneth us to make two Churches, a Visible and an Invisible, he saith we only affirm, Vnam quoad essentiam internam, & alteram quoad modum existendi externum: and urgeth Augustine saying, [Bonos sic esse in domo Dei, quae est Ecclesia, ut ipsi sint domus constructa ex vivis lapidibus: malos sic esse in domo, ut ipsi tamen non sint domus.]

§. 7. Where Bellarmine saith, Reprobates belong to the Church; he answereth, [Hoc non potest negari si intelligatur secundum extrinsecam rationem Ecclesiae militantis, prout capilli, ungues, aut mali humores pertinent ad corpus humanum: quam explicationem dedit nobis Bellarm. cap. 2. aut quemadmodum Civitas Romana multos non Cives dicitur complecti.]

§. 8. Bellarm. Magni & manifesti peccatores sunt in Ecclesia. Resp. At hoc etiam conceditur à nobis eodem sensu quo antecedens illud effatum— i. e. ita ut istius modi peccatores non sint membra vera, nec simpliciter corporis Ecclesiae, sed tantum secundùm quid & Aequivoce.

15. Wendeline in Christ. Theol. lib. 1. cap. 28.15 Wendeline. is large upon it; He makes spiritual Union with Christ to be the Internal and Essential form of the Church; and visible Externals to be but an Accidental external form. In all his definitions he makes only the Elect-believers and Justified to be the true members, and that both of the Universal Church and of Particular Churches. He hath nine Arguments against the Papists to prove Hypocrites no true members of the Church, concluding that then Hereticks and notorious ungodly persons are much less members. He answereth the Papists Arguments at large, (the same that are now taken up against us) drawn from the Parables of the Tares, the Net, the ten Virgins, &c. and from the coruptions of the Jewish and other Churches: and concludeth pag. 736. [Hypocritas quod attinet, ex judicio Charitatis habentur quidem pro veris Ecclesiae membris; sed non sunt. Aliud est esse quoad externam Professionem, & aliorum Opinionem; aliud vere esse. And shewing how the true Church is visible, he doth it thus, pag. 737. Deinde ex judicio Charitatis pro veris Ecclesiae membris habentur omnia coetus particularis membra, sive hypocritae, sive verè fideles sint, in quibus externae nostrae notae deprehenduntur. Hoc igitur respectu quoque vera Ecclesia, vera inquam, sive foreign sive secundum Charitatis judicium, est Visibilis.

Yea, having mentioned those Notes wherein the external accidental form consisteth, he addeth, [Harum respectu Ecclesia appellatur visibilis, cujus membra sunt verè fideles & hypocritae; illi tamen ipsa rei veritate, hi ex judicio Charitatis & hominum opinione.] I desire the Reader that needs it to peruse the Chapter throughout, because the book is common, and it throughly handleth this point against the Papists.

16. Keckerman System. Theolog. l. 3. c. 6.16. Keckerman. shews the equivocal use of the word Ecclesia, and makes the consideration of that the ready way to decide the Controversie between us and the Papists. Ecclesia latè accepta he makes to be that which containeth all Professors, viz that profess Christ to be their King, Priest, and Prophet: of which he layeth down these Canons; [1. Ecclesia est quiddam foreign, quod una essentiali & generali definitione comprehendi nequit.] And addeth, [De Ecclesia variae intercedunt Controversiae Ecclesiis Pontificiis & Reformatis, inter qua… prima est haec, Vtrùm videlicet etiam Reprobi ad Ecclesiam pertineant? Affirmant omnes Pontificii, & statuunt etiam Reprobos ac Damnandos homines Ecclesiae membra esse, ídque hoc confilio, &c.— id interim concedunt, Reprobos esse putrida Ecclesiae membra: At verò considerare debebant, membrum putridum non esse amplius animae instrumentum in corpore, & idcirco nec Membrum, nisi foreign dictum; sicut Aristoteles de Manu dicit, Manum resectam, aut it a mutilam ut resecanda sit, non esse Manum, nisi foreign. Sicut Serra qua secare non possumus, aut Culter ligneus, non est Serra vel Culter, nisi homonym…s: Tota ergo Questio facillime expeditur distinctione Ecclesiae, quae vel late accipitur, & quidem cum homonymia quadam, vel stricte & proprie sine homonymia. Priori modo Reprobi profitentes Christum, sunt membra Ecclesi…; posteriori nentiquam. Ducatur Argumentum à similitudine Reipub. & Regni alicujus, ubi quidem Civis late & foreign dicitur etiam flagitiosissimus quisque, & qui preditario est in patriam animo, inque eâ seditiones movet—sed proprié ac sine homonymia, &c.—

17. Gomarrus in Loc. Commun. Eptom. per Sibolium collect. Loc. 50. pag. 57.17. Gomar…us. [Materia (ex qua Ecclesiae est) sunt omnes & soli Electi, Rom. 8 29, 30, 33. 1 Pet. 25, 9—] Pag. 510. Speaking of the Militant Church, as joined in external communion, he saith. [Et Reprobi velut hoedi cum ovibus permixti, Math. 25.32. propriè sunt in Ecclesiâ, sed non ex ecclesiâ, 1 Joan. 2.19. nisi secundùm quid, & Metaphorice, ob similitudinem professionis Fidei & Obedientiae; qui hircinum ingenium ovinâ hâc pelle contegunt, & oves Christi fallaci specie simulant.—

18. Dr. Humfrey in Jesuitismo Part. 2. Rat. 3.18. D. Humfrey. having in the Index said [Ecclesiae vox aequivoca,] doth pag. 210. and forward, labor to manifest it. And pag. 279 [Quamvis enim Ecclesiae nomen sit foreign & aquivocum, tamen si de verâ Ecclesia proprie loquendum est, illo egregio nomine soli digni sunt fideles. Donius est cujus Lapides vivi: Vinea & Pomarium Domini est, cujus arbores fructuosae & fructum ferunt, qui non peribit sed perdurabit. Nam homo pictus non est homo sed statua, ita nec Ecclesia nisi quae Fide fundatur, Charitate rigatur, Spe sustentatur, Spiritu animatur ac sanctificatur.

19. Sharpius in Curs. Theolog. de Corp. Eccles. milit. is large against the Papists,19. Sharpius. and neer twenty times mentions an homonymie in the word, Ecclesia, and calls the members of the Visible Church only, sons foreign, and the Godly foreign. And oft distinguisheth betwixt being in the Church as the Reprobates are, and being of the Church as Believers Justified are. And that you may know what he takes the Church as Visible to be, note what he saith pag. 1763. ad Obj. 12. Obj. Quod est in parte est in toto: at Reprobi sunt in parte Ecclesiae Catholicae, viz. Visibili: ergò.— Resp. Non concludit quod est in Questione, quia Questio est, An sunt ex Ecclesia, seu membra Ecclesiae; non An in Ecclesia Visibili? Deinde, sunt in parte, non ex parte, que est pars Ecclesia Catholicae. Nam Visibilis Ecclesia tota qua talis, non est pars Ecclesi… Catholica.—Pag. 1766. Confundit esse in Ecclesia, & esse de Ecclesia.—Vid. caetera.

20. Rob. Bodius Com. in Ephes. cap. 1. vers. ult. pag. 186.20. Rob. Bodius Troch. [Quinimo ne Membra quidem omnino nisi foreign & aequivoce dici possunt, ut docet Philosophus ipse naturae lumen ductumque secutus, lib. 2. de anim. oculum visu destitutum. h. e. coecum non amplius oculum esse inquiens, nisi aequivoce, &c. — Pag. 187. Bellarminus spinam quae ipsum hac ex parte pungebat quasi digito nobis indicat. (Nempe, si mali sunt aequivoce tantum, & non vere Membra Ecclesiae, sequetur (inquit) inde malum Pontificem non esse Caput Ecclesiae, & malum Pastorem equivoce tantum esse Pastorem: quod (inquit) inter Errores Joan. Hussi. damnatum fuisse, Sess. 15. Concil. Constant. — Pag. 188. Quare hoc saltem ex Bellarmini distinctione consecuti sumus, males Plebeios, qui tantum ut Membra, non autem instrumenta, considerari possunt in Ecclesia esse mortua, ac proinde non vera Membra.

21. I. H. Alstedius in Encyclopaed. lib. 25. Theol. sect. 3. Loc. 24. pag. 382.21. Alstedius. Cum Ecclesia militans dicitur esse & Invisibilis & Visibilis, neque est distributio generis in suas species, neque integri in sua membra; sed distinctio adjunctorum ejusdem subjecti (therefore there must be the same subject of Visible Profession, as of Invisible Faith.) Non itaque hic est sensus, quasi Ecclesia una sit Invisibilis, altera Visibilis: aut quasi una pars Ecclesiae sit Invisibili alia Visibilis: sed Invisibilitas est affectio, seu modus Ecclesiae respectu for…ae essentialis, & internae; Visibilitas est affectio seu modus Ecclesi…, quantum ad formam Accidentalem, & ex…ernam, Nam forma essentialis est Invisibilis, quia est Relatio & quidem spirtualis — Forma accidentalis est visibilis.—

22. D. Georg. Sohnius (one of the most learned accurate Divines the Reformed Churches have possessed) Tom. 1. Method. Theol. pag. 195.22. Geo…g. Sohnius. Itaque illi in quibus nihil agit Christus, non sunt membra Christi & Ecclesiae: vel certe sunt (ut quidam loquuntur) mortua membra. Nam vulgo sic dividunt membra Ecclesiae; ut alia viva, alia mortua esse dicant. Pag. 196. Ecclesia visibilis est Coetus hominum ad tractandas res divinas convenientium, in quo Coetu etiam sunt mali & hypocritae multi, sed tamen de doctrina con…entientes: qui quamvis in Ecclesia versantes, tamen non sunt de Ecclesia; id est, non sunt Ecclesiae vera & viva membra. Visibilis dicitur Ecclesia propter ordinem Ecclesiasticum, & formam exteriorem ac visibilem: que quidem fecit ut Ecclesia s…t & dicatur visibilis. Etsi autaem hic fidelibus admixti sunt hypocritae, tamen non nisi propter fideles dicitur Ecclesia.

Et in Thes. Marpurg. pag. 118. §. 13. Quibus multi admixti sunt hypocritae, qui quamvis in Ecclesia versantur, tamen non sunt de Ecclesia, id est, non sunt ejus vera vivaque membra.

23. Ph. Melact. in Apol. August. Confess. Impress. Witteberg. 1542. f. 65.23. Melancthon. Certa & immota veritas decet, non esse membra Ecclesiae eos qui scienter oppugnant verhatem, & stabiliunt idola & vitiosos cultu…. Joan. Manlius Loc. Commun. de Eccles. pag. 468. ex Melancth. Concedimus quod hypocritae & mali in haec vita sint admixti Ecclesiae, & sint membra Ecclesiae secundum externam societatem signorum, &c. — At Ecclesia non est tantum societas externarum rerum ac rituum, sicut aliae politiae, sed principaliter est societas Fidei & Spiritus sancti in cordibus, &c. — Fol. 66. Et in Decretis inquit Glossa, Ecclesiam large dictam complecti bonos & malos. Item malos, Nomine tantum in Ecclesia esse, non Re: bonos vero Re & Nomine. Et in hanc sententiam multa leguntur apud Patres. Hieronymus ait, [Qui pecator est aliqua sorde maculatus, de Ecclesia Christi non potest appellari, nec Christo subjectum dici.] Quanquam igitur hypocritae & mali sint socii hujus verae Ecclesiae secundum externos ritus, tamen cum definitur Ecclesia, necesse est eam definiri, quae est vivum Corpus Christi: Item quae est Nomine & Re Ecclesia. Et multae sunt Causae: Necesse est enim intelligi quae res principaliter efficiat nos membra, & viva membra Ecclesiae] Leg. & fol. 67. & quae habet Sohnius in Thes. Theolog. ex Corpore doctr. Melanct. c. 17. p. 52.

24. Learned Sadeel in Respons…ad Turriani Sophism. is so large in proving the Internal form of the Church only to be Essential,24. Sideel. that instead of citing his words, I must refer the Reader to the perusal of the Book, contenting my self now to recite these few about the Membership of Reprobates.

Pag. 315. (mihi) Sic igitur habeto: quia particulares habent Ecclesiae Electos, hinc fieri ut elogia totius Electorum Ecclesiae de singulis particularibus Ecclesiis dicantur: nō quia sunt vifibiles (ut tu existimas) sed quia visibiles Ecclesiae Electos habēt propter, quos etiā Ecclesiae dicūtur. Sic dicūtur Hebr. illi ad quos scripsit Apostolus, accessisse ad Hierusalem coelestem, & myriadas angelorum, conventum & concionem sive Ecclesiam primogenitorum qui conscripti sunt in coelis, hoc est, ad Ecclesiam Electorum.] Sic dicuntur Ephesii Concives sanctorum, & Domestic Dei. Sic Corinthii, sanctificati. Sic Philippenses, Colossenses Thessalonicenses, dicuntur sancti. Deinque sic illi ad quos scribebat Petrus, dicuntur Electi. Quae omnia visibilibus Ecclesiis tribuuntur, & nihilominus sunt Electorum propria: ut enim de Vite dici potst eam proferre vinum ad vitam hominis tuendam accommodatum, neque id tamen ad aridos & mortuos palmites, sed ad solos frugiferos erit referendum: Ità quod hìc dicitur de Ecclesia, & multa alia consimili ità dicuntur de Ecclesiis visibilibus, ut ad solos Electos, non autem ad Reprobos & Hypoeritas pertineant. Rectè enim Hieronymus, Nihil interest (inquit) de Corpore quid dicatur an de Membris, cùm & Corpus dividatur in Membra, & Membra sint Corporis. [Quamobrem duo tibi fuerunt consideranda, Turriane, quae te ab hoc inepto concludendi genere revocarent. Vnum, hypocritas & reprobos propriè non esse partes conficientes, sed, ut ita dicam, deficientes, vel vel potius esse partes foreign quand Ecclesiae Visibles dicuntur constare ex electis & Reprobis.] Sic pag. 314 [Visibilis Ecclesia constat etiam & imprimis ex electis, tanquam dignissimis, & propter quos (ut ante diximus Ecclesia vocatur.

25. Sam. Maresius Colleg. Theolog. Loc. 15. pag. 386, 388.25. Maresius. [Quum vox Ecclesiae sit ità foreign, non potest certa definitione ejus quidditas exprimi, nisi caetera significata tanquam analogata ad primarium aliquod caput revocentur. Hoc vero statuimus esse Ecclesiam Electorum &c. — Distinctio frequens Ecclesiae in universalem & particularem non est generis in species, aut totius in partes, sed vocis ambiguae in sua significata.

Ratione Professionis & Vocationis Christianae, quum in aliis sit duntaxat externa, in aliis vero interna quoque & seria, Ecclesia membra sunt duum generum: Qu… dam enim Univoce, quaedam vero non nisi Aequivoce talia dici debent. Aequivoce tantum & solum secundum dici, Ecclesiae membra sunt Hypocritae, occulti Infideles, & Reprobi; E nobis egressi sunt, sed non erant ex nobis: Illi sunt in Ecclesia, ut mali humores aut lumbrici in nostro corpore: Univoce vero, proprie & secundum esse, soli Electi & vere Credentes. Vos non creditis: non enim estis ex ovibus meis, &c.

Idem in Exeg. Confess. Belgic. §. 15. Art. 27. p. 386, 387. [Inde autem nonnulla magni momenti Consectaria nascuntur; 1. Reverae dari Ecclesiam praedestinatorum sive electorum: imo hanc proprie & univoce esse solam Christi Ecclesiam, &c. 2. Solos electos post efficacem suam vocationem constituere in terris univece & proprie illam Christi Ecclesiam quam credimus; alios vero non nisi aequivoce, secundum dici & putative ad illam pertinere. Quae in contrarium disputantur a Bellarmino, plane futilia & ficulnea sunt.

26. Altingius Loc. Com. Part. 1. Loc. 11. pag. 180, 181.26. Altingius. Item Part. 2. Loc. 11. pag. 580.581, 582. [Cum solis Pontificiis certamen superest — 1. An …raeter electos vocatos etiam Reprobi, Infideles, sive occulti sive manifesti peccatores, verae Christi Ecclesiae membra sint? Pontificii affirmant: Nos negamus.

Rationes nostrae. Ex natura subjecti 1. Qui nec Spiritum sanctum nec sidem habent, verae Christi Ecclesiae membra non sunt. Reprobi, infideles nec Spiritum, sanctum habent, nec fidem, &c. — 2. Qui non sunt ex sive de Ecclesia, non sunt vera ejus membra: Reprobi, infideles non sunt ex sive de vera Ecclesia: ergo — 3. Qui sunt membra Diaboli, non sunt membra verae Ecclesi…, &c.

Ex natura Praedicati. 1. Omnia membra verae Ecclesiae vocantur secundum propositum Dei, &c. — 2. Omnia membra verae Ecclesiae sunt membra Christi, &c. — 3. Omnia membra verae Ecclesiae sunt Oves Christi, agnoscunt, audiunt, sequuntur ipsum, &c. —] See the proofs, and the confutation of the Papists reasons, drawn from the Parables of the Field, the Net, the Wedding Feast, from Baptism, from the Example of the Apostolical Churches, the uncertainty of Members, &c.

Idem in Explicat. Cateches. Palat. Part. 2. pag. 255. [Item proprie & Univoce competit veris & sinceris ejus membris, quae sunt vere sideles: Improprie & Aequivoce membris simulatis, qualia sunt omnes hypocritae; qui ut paleae inter triticum, zizania inter bonum semen, pisces putridi inter bonos, versantur in Ecclesia, & propter, externae confessionis gloriationem ejusdem membra censentur.

27. These Salmuriens. Vol. 3. de variis Ecclesiae partibus,27. Thes. Saimuriens. Thes. 28. [Equidem mihi dici velim quid sibi voluerit subtilissimus Disputator, qui partes veras appellavit membra arida at que mortua. Illa autem forma quae in corporibus viventibus anima appellatur, semper vitam comitem habet, neque potest ab ea separari, haud magis quàm à seipsa: Ideo neque rami in arbore demortui partes ejus censentur: neque in animantibus quae loco sunt excrementorum, quaeque vitam non participant, ut pili & ungues, ab ea parte qua sunt privati sensu, habentur pro corporis partibus: neque in corpore humano crus aut brachium quod foreign penitus occupavit, membrum ejus censetur ampliùs; haud magis quàm homo pictus pro homine judicatur: ideoque extirpatur, tanquam nihil cum corpore commune habens.

28. Lucas Trelcatius senior in Opuscul. Theol. Loc. Com. de Eccles,28. Luc. Trelcatius senior. pag. 430. [Ob hoc enim ipsum Ecclesiae nomen singulis coetibus fidem Christi ex illius Verbo profitentibus rectè tribuitur, quòd scilicet Ecclesiae invisibilis ibi membra esse verè credantur; nam propter electos propriè coetus aliquis vocatur Ecclesia, etiamsi sint minima illius pars. A potiori enim, non autem saepè majori, fit hîc rei denominatio, scilicet ab eo quo res est quod est: ut acervus tritici, tritici tamen dicitur, non palearum. Pag. 429. Visibilis verò Ecclesiae membra sunt hominibus nota, sed judicio Charitatis, saepe non Veritatis, propter vocationem & professionem externam, sed saepe hypocriticam. Pag. 427. Visibiles inquam, non ab illâ formâ internâ quae dat proprie esse rei, sed à formâ externâ, &c. —] See more there.

Pag. 448. Resp. Neg. Nec enim mortua membra corporis vivi sunt membra, nisi homonymôs: & vivae Dei Ecclesiae nullum est membrum mortuum.] Vid. & L. Trelcat. jun. Instit. lib. 2. page 254, 255.

29. Th. Cartwright contr. Rhem. in Joh. 15.1.29. Th. Cartwright. [Branch in me] Rotten branches, and dead members: branches and members in shew and not in truth. And therefore that which they have not indeed, and yet seem to have in their own and other mens opinion, shall be taken from them.

30. Bucer, and Marlorate citing him,30. Bucer & Marlorate. on Joh. 15.2. Quomodo ergo zizania sunt in regno Dei, & putres pisces in reti Evangelico, carens veste nuptiali in nuptiis Christi; ita in Christo est qui non fert fructum; Nomine tenus scilicet, & secundùm externam speciem tantùm, non etiam verâ fide.

31. Joan. Camero Praelect. de Eccles. pag. 246.31. Camero [3. Negandum est posse sciri distinctè & certò qui sint verae Ecclesiae membra; quae sit vera Ecclesia: at concedendum est tamen posse id sciri distinctè & probabiliter; quae scientia vulgò dicitur Judicium Charitatis.—ergo Ecclesiae dicitur quemadmodum homo. Nam & homo pictus & coloratus à Philosopho dicitur homo; & verus homo dicitur homo: & homini picto & vero quedam sunt communia secundùm quae tam hic quàm ille homo dicitur: attamen nemo cavillabitur constitui sic duo genera hominum.

Et pag. 258. [Negamus in ullâ re externâ sitam esse Ecclesiae Essentiam, ideoque nulla vis est quae cogat ut fateamur Essentiam Ecclesie eandem Notam esse, &c.—Consequens est, ut quaecunque Deus pollicetur Ecclesiae suae, seu ea pertineant ad fidem, seu ad mores, intelligenda sint eâ de parte quae proprie sine tropo Ecclesia dicitur, neque convenire Ecclesiae illi quae synecdochicè Ecclesia dicitur, nisi per accidens, respectu scilicet illius partis, quomodo vivere is dicitur, cujus aliqua pars computruit, quanquam pars putrida (quod & Aristoteles nos docuit) non est proprie pars, sed homonymos propter similitudinem & figuram: nam reâpse non est pars quando non est formae totius particeps.]

Were it not that I think the labour needless, I should add many testimonies collected, and at hand, from Zuinglius, Bullinger, Piscator, Paraeus, Bucanus, Rivet, with many more, yea many score I doubt not might be added: But I shall spare my self and the Reader that labour, till I perceive it necessary, and shall only conclude with two of our own: One in a book not past a month old; that it may appear that we yet hold to the old Protestant Doctrine, as easie as it is to turn some from it by specious pretences.

Mr. H. Jeanes in Scholast. & practic. Divinity pag. 18.19. saith thus.32. M. Ieanes [Vse Inform. Is the Church the outward fulness of Christ, considered as Head? we may then be informed what is the nature and quality of the true members; that they are effectually called, and truly sanctified, linkt unto Christ with an internal union by the bond of the Spirit on his part, and of faith on theirs. Indeed as in the body natural there are hairs, nails, evil humors, and many other things, which yet belong not integrally thereunto as proper members: So if we regard not the inward and invisible Essence, but the visible state, or outward manner of the Churches being, there adhere unto her many uncalled, unjustified, and unsanctified persons, but it is only as excrements or ulcers: For every true member of the Church is a part of Christs fulness, and therefore must receive of his fulness grace for grace, must be endowed with all saving and sanctifying graces; otherwise how can it concur to the making of Christ full and compleat?

Vse 2. Refut. Whence secondly may be inferred the gross Error of the Papists in avouching, that external profession and conformitie, outward subjection to the Pope of Rome, are sufficient to constitute one a true member of the Catholick Church, although he be a Reprobate, an unbeliever, an hypocrite so gross as Judas or Simon Magus, a professed and notorious impious wretch, that is utterly devoid of all spiritual life and grace whatsoever. If he take up a room in the Church, it matters not with them, though he neither do nor can perform vital actions, yet he shall pass for a true part thereof.

Pag. 19. He confesseth that they are united to the Church but by an outward Conjunction: And was ever any man so deprived of common sense and understanding as to call a woodden leg a part of the body to which it was annexed, as to term wens, warts, and moles, sores and botches members of the body in which they were?]

33. The other is Mr. Perkins, 33. Mr. Perkinsin whom the Judgement of other English Protestants of his time may be discerned: Expos. on the Creed, in Vol. 1. pag. 308. [Hence we learn, 1. That the Church of Rome erreth, in teaching that a wicked man, yea such a one as shall never be saved, may be a true member of the Catholick Church, &c.—]

But lest you should say that he speaks this only of the Invisible Church, (though our Divines say that there is but one Church which is Visible and Invisible in several respects) I shall desire you to consider what he saith of the Visible Chuhch expresly, pag. 303, 304. [The visible Church may be thus described: It is a mixt company of men professing the faith, assembled together by the preaching of the word. — It is called a Church, of the better part, namely the elect whereof it consisteth, though they be in number few. As for the ungodly, though they be in the church, yet they are no more parts of it indeed than the superfluous humors in the veins are parts of the body. — Again because the profession of faith is otherwhiles true and sincere, and otherwhiles only in shew, Therefore there be also two sorts of Members of the visible Church. Members before God, and members before men. A member of the Church before God is he that beside the outward profession of the Faith, hath inwardly a pure heart, good conscience and Faith unfeigned, whereby he is indeed a true member of the Church. Members before men, whom we may call reputed members, are such as have nothing els but the outward. Profession, wanting the good conscience, and the Faith unfeigned; the Reason why they are to be esteemed members of us is because we are bound by the Rule of Charity to think of Men as they appear unto us; leaving secret judgement unto God.] so far Perkins. And so much for these testimonies.

By what hath been said it is evident that it is the judgement of the Protestants that reprobates and wicked men are not properly members of the Church, but only Equivocally, and that the Church, is but one, which in some respect is visible, and some invisible, and that it is denominated Invisible because its Essential form is Invisible; and denominated visible only from an External Accidental form; and therefore that those members that are only visible, or have only the Accidental form of Members, or are only of the Church as visible, are but Equivocally members of the Church properly so called, as from its essential form. This they commonly maintain against the Papists. I confess I think that somewhat more should be said for the explication of this point (which is fullyest done by the Thes. Salmuriens. vol. 3.) but though I am not now delivering my own apprehensions, but the words of others,Some Papists Confessions. yet that the true [Church] as also [Holynes, Faith, Christianity, Adoption,] are Equivocal, as applied to the Regenerate and unregenerate, I wholly agree with the common judgement, and am past doubt of it, though Mr. Blake contradict it with Abhorence.

Bellarmine confesseth that many of their own (as Johan. de Turre cremata, Alexander Hales, Hugo, Thomas, &c. did take the wicked to be but Equivocally called members of the Church: And our Divines (as Dr. Sutlive pag. 23.24. mention also Peter à Soto, Melchior Canus, and divers others (et. p. 29.) And Bellarmine himself saith they are but Membra Mortua. Fathers.And for the judgement of the Fathers, herein, other Divines against the Papists have produced them at large. See Dr. Sutlive de Eccles. lib. 1. c. 7. fol. 28. &c. 6. fol. 22.23. Now let us hear Mr. Blake.

Mr. Blake p. 150. [Then it seems there is no Reality in such separations! Camero tells us otherwise, that there is a Reality in this Saintship by separation.]

Ans. This is the first time that ever I heard that Equivocal terms express not Realityes. Is there no Reality in a picture or a corps? It sufficeth that the Reality is not the same that in a man, and a corps is expressed by the same word [Man] Camero's judgement of our controversie is declared before in his own words.

Mr. Blake [And it seems the Scripture is still under the charge of Equivocal speeches all over.]

Ans. This anger flyes too high. I beseech you make not the undeniable Equivocal terms which you finde in Scripture the Matter of [a Charge:] Its is ill judging the Law that must Judge us. Is there a Divine on earth that will deny that there are Equivocal terms in Scripture? or that there are hundreds, if not thousand numerical words that are such. And do you not fear to make these the Grounds of [a charge?] Scripture shall not go uncharged except it speak so as to please us! In the highest matters about the Attributes and Works of God, how common are Equivocal terms? But do you indeed think that all Equivocal terms are Culpable? yea or unnecessary? or not intelligible? I pray you distinguish between Jesuitical dissembling Equivocation, and the laudable yea necessary use of Equivocal words, when either the transcendencie of the matter, the incapacity of men, the paucity of terms, the custom of speech, &c. hath made them fit or needfull: Let God have the forbearance and justice in your interpretations, as every writer and Speaker is allowed without any accusation; the Scripture hath accusers enow already.

Mr. Blake [I would know for my learning what advantage or profit a dead corps is in capacity to enjoy. I think none at all: but these have much every way.]

Ans. Thus you argue, (or you say nothing:) [If unregenerate Saints, Church-members &c, have much advantage, and a corps have no advantage, then they are not Equivocally called Saints, Church-members, &c. as a corps is called a man: But &c. The consequence is not only false, but too gross. Advantage or disadvantage are nothing to the nature of Equivocals.

2. In its kinde a Corps may have advantage; It may be stuck with flowers, perfumed, emblamed, and kept from stinking, as ungodly men are by their common Gifts, for the sake of those with whom they do converse. 3. An Ape is capable of advantage, and yet if you call him a man it is a more Catachresticall Equivocation, than to call a corps so: An embryo or rude beginings of a mans body before it receive the soul, it is capable of advanatage, in order to Manhood, and yet is but Equivocally called a man.

Mr. Blake. If such Equivocation be found in the word [Saint] then the like is to be affirmed of the word Believer; and Believers having their denomination from their faith, that is equivocall in like manner, and so the common Division of faith into Dogmatical or Historical, temporary, miraculous, and justifying is but a Division of an Aequivocum in sua Aequivocata, which I should think no man should affirm, much less Mr. Baxter, who makes common and special grace to differ only gradually; and then as cold in a remiss degree may grow to that which is intense; so one Aequivocatum may rise up to the Nature of another: animal terrestre, may become Sydus Coeleste.

Ans. 1. Its no good consequence: because the word [Saint] is Equivocal, therefore the word [Believer] is so. 2. Our dispute is not about the sence of the word [Faith] or [Believer] in General: but about the [Christian Faith] in special, from whence a man is to be properly called a Christian, and upon the profession whereof he is to be baptized; for I told you once already, that as Faith is taken in General, so your lower sort of faith is truly and properly Faith; and so is believing in Mahomet: To distinguish Faith into Divine and Humane, and into Christian and Mahometan &c, is not aequivoci in sua aequivocata divisio: But to distinguish the Christian Faith which entituleth to Baptism, into saving Faith, and that which is short of it, is aequivoci in sua aequivocata. 3. If you thought No man had been guilty of this conceit, whether that thought do more disparage the said assertion, or your self, I must not be judge; but I take it as if you had said, [I thought no man had written against Bellarmines definition of the Church] 4. As to your [No Man; much less Mr. Baxter] as I know not the reason of your thought, unless you indeed take me not only to be No Man, but to be somewhat distinct both from a man and no man; so I am as little satisfied with the Reason which you alledg: For 1. It is a Gross untruth unworthy a Divine and a Brother, that I hold common and special Grace to differ only gradually. And that this should be deliberately published, even after I had given the world in print so full an account of the mistake of this accusation from another, once and again, this is yet less ingenuous, and doth but tell us what we must expect from Brethren when passion is predominant. I never affirmed any more than this, [that there is a Moral specifick difference, between special and common Graces founded in a Natural Gradual difference.] I manifested in print that Dr. Kendall who writeth against me on this occasion, doth not only say the same thing, but profess that others differ not from me, and resolveth his dispute into a reprehension of me for pretending a difference. Yet after all these writings my reverend Brother Mr. Blake sticks not to affirm to this and future Ages in print that I hold [Only a Gradual difference,] without any more ado. And of such dealing I may say his Book is too full. 5. Your reason is no reason; I hope you think not either that your Animal terrest…e & Sydus caeleste differ but Gradually; nor yet that there are no Equivocals that differ only in Natural degrees: who knows not that in many hundred cases a Degree may vary the species?

Mr. Blake [If Juda's faith was only Equivocal, then the unclean spirits were Equivocal likewise.

Ans. A consequence as well fortified with proof of Reason as much more of your book is. Yet I take the boldness to deny it.

Mr. Blake [I shall never believe that an Equivocal faith can cast out a reall devil.]

Answ. 1. You are not able to make good your word: for you have not wholly the Command of your own belief. I am as confident that you will believe it. 2. But if you will not that's no good argument to us that the thing is false. 3. An Equivocal faith is a Real faith; why then may it not cast out a Real Devil (that is, be a Causa sine qua non? for no faith doth properly effect it.) I hope you will believe that [the finger of God] can cast out a real devil; and yet I hope you think that Gods Power is but Equivocally called [His finger.]

Mr. Blake [The Apostle tells us of Faith to the removal of mountaines, void of Charity: if this were Equivocal faith, those must be Equivocal mountaines.

Still the like proof! you may as well say [If it be Equivocally called Gods finger, then it must Equivocally be called a devil that is ejected. We need better proof.

Mr. Blake pag. 153. bringeth Du-Plessis, Wollebius, Gomarrus, Hudson, Paraeus, Ames, saying that good and bad are in the visible Church.

Ans. Have you to do with any man that denyeth it? But you know, they distinguish between In the Church, and Of the Church, and 2. that they Judge not of the visible as you do. And therefore you do but fraudenly pag. 156. make it my opinion as joyning with Bellarmines unjust charge, that the visible Church is no true Church, but Equivocally so called, and that there are two Churches &c. Do but you quit your self of the charge of making two Churches as well as all, and we shall do well enough for that. And for the other part of your charge, our Divines say that there are in the visible Church, 1. those that belong to it as Invisible. 2 hypocrites and reprobates: the former say they are properly members of the Church in its proper sense, the latter are only seeming members: and the Church visible is called [a Church] in respect to the former: And the visible is denominated but from an Accidental and not the essential form. Their words before cited shew this.

Mr. Blake [And whereas Mr. Baxter saith that other Divines generally plead that Hypocrites are not true members of the universal Church, but as a wooden leg to the body: I am almost confident that in turning over all his bookes, he can produce but few such testimonies,] Had he said [the Catholick Church] instead of [the universal] I believe he might have found many — I think that scarce any man will deny that the universal Church is visible—yet Whitaker as largely makes good that the Catholick Church is invisible: If I be now sent to my Dictionary, to see whether Catholick and Vniversal be both one —the one a Greek word, the other a Latine; I confess it is so in Grammer, but not in their use of it that handle the question of the Church Catholick in this manner — &c.

Answ. Wonderful Confidence… Readers, take warning by Mr. Blake and me, and for our sakes be not over credulous, no not in the most palpable matters of fact. You hear Mr. Blakes confidence, and now you shall hear mine. Whether I can cite many such testimonies is partly apparent already. Melancthon, Calvin, Beza, Vrsine, Polanus, Paraeus, Piscator, Zanchy, Junius, and I think I may add an hundred more, do promiscuously use the terms [Catholick] and [Vniversal] here: and commonly joyn them thus [Ecclesia Catholica seu Vniversalis.] I profess, I mention that which mine eyes have many a time punctually observed: and I further profess that I never to this day (to my best remembrance) did read one Author (nor hear of one till M. Blake here speaks it) that did distinguish between the [Catholick and Universal Church;] and though I may not say that no man ever did so, as having not read all, yet I will say, I do not believe that ever one reputed, wise and Orthodox did so, and I think Mr. Blake would have proved it from some one if he could. I take this therefore to be a most injurious reproach to our Divines. Name us one man if you can that ever was guilty of this ridiculous distinction: yea or one Papist that had the front to charge them with such a thing. It is well known that our elder Reformers use to plead against the Papist that particular Churches are visible, but that Ecclesia Catholica seu Vniversalis is invisible (though you stick not to say that scarce any man will deny the Universal Church to be visible;) and that our latter Divines do speak more cautelously, and say, that both particular and Universal Church are quoad formam externam visible: and yet both are well reconcileable in sence: but your dinstinction I never met with before.

Pag. 156. I must profess that in perusing all Mr. Blake's book, I found but one place, that at the first reading might seem to an impartial man (of intellectuals no stronger than mine,) to be a successful confutation of any one of my Arguments, and that is the next, where repeating my Argument (that the distribution of the Church into visible and invisible, is but of a subject into diverse adjuncts; therefore the members that are meerly visible, are indeed no part &c, because adjuncts are no part of the essence: he answers [The consequence might as fairly have bin that these members which are invisible, are no parts &c.] I confess at the first view its a pausible answer, but open it, and the inside is no better than the rest. For my argument takes the adjunct as conjunct with the reason of the denomination, and Invisible is not a real adjunct, but a negative denomination; and so the argument is thus [The Church is called Invisible from its internal essential form, which is invisible; and its called visible but from its external accidental form which is visible: therefore those Members that are meerly visible (note; I said, Meerly,) are but Equivocally called members of the Church, because they participate only of the accidental form, and not at all of the essential. Thus argue the Protestants ordinarily against Bellarmine. And now where is Mr. Blakes splendid answer, Invisibility is but an adjunct, no more than visibility; true; and not so much neither. But the Reason of the denomination, or the thing denominated Invisible, is that which Protestants call the essence, and that called visible is but an Accident in their account.

Whereas pag. 157. you take the Church to be an integrum, and that the meerly visible Members are parts, yea and the visible to be the Church most properly, it is notorious that you side with the Papists therein against the stream of Protestant Divines: Though the thing it self I shall not now debate, it being meerly a Controversie de nomine that we have in hand, and I mention the words of Divines, because that custom is the Master of speech; and therefore have no better meanes that I know of to decide such kind of Controversies.

As to what you say pag. 132. I reply again; that which is Real, may have an equivocal name; and men will know this, yea and Children too, when you have talkt your utmost.

And as to what you say page 139.140. about Equivocal Covenanting, I say as I did of Faith: Take Covenanting in General, and so a wicked man doth properly Covenant ex parte sui with his tongue: But take it for the Christian Covenanting which entitleth to baptism and denominateth us Christians, which is [a consent to Gods terms on which he offers Christ and life,] and so all the covenantings, of the ungodly are but equivocally called [Covenanting with God in Christ] If you will not believe me; at least regard Dr. Kendals long dispute on such a point in his second volume, on a mistake, intended against me; and answer him before you persevere. And as for Gods act of Covenanting with them, I say, He is not actually in Covenant with them or obliged to them; but only still doth offer them his Covenant.

Reader, I suppose I should do but an unnecessary and undesired work, if I should thus give a particular Reply to all the rest of such passages as the forementioned in Mr. Blakes book. And therefore having enough of such work already, I shall forbear, and here dismiss thee.

An account of my Reasons why I make no answer to Mr Robertson, nor a more particular Reply to Mr. Blake, or Dr. Owens appendix, as they were given heretofore in a Letter to a Reverend Friend.

Though most of my Reverend Brethren that have written to me of that subject, do advise me to forbear particular Replies to the words of others, because the matter is so much obscured or disadvantaged through the verbal quarrels, and they only desire me to handle the point of Title to Sacraments in some just Disputations, and to take in that of Mr. Blakes which best deserveth a Reply, (whom I have obeyed in these Disputations,) yet because some few others are of a contrary minde, I shall lay down my reasons why I do not yield to their desires; which is, not only because it is impossible to please men of contrary expectations, and because they are the fewer, but also because to me their reasons seem less weighty, and the work which they require is less grateful, and will be less profitable.

And first for Mr. Robertson, he that thinks such a book doth need a Reply, is like to profit little by any of mine, and so I leave him to be of what opinion the winde and tide shall drive him to. I have read over a M. S. Book of Mr. Hotchkis which is his vindication against Mr. Robertson; wherein he hath sufficiently and easily done a needless work. To reciprocate gain-sayings with that kinde of men, is an unprofitable and unpleasing thing: The sons of contention in their greatest darkness, are more zealous and unwearied in their generation and work, than the Children of light and peace in theirs. Its not desirable to match them in violence, in selfconceitedness, in rashness, or false accusations, in scorns, or lowdness, or length of speech. And as peaceable Readers are grieved with such disputes, so usually the Antagonist is more hardened in his mistakes. If you have a friend that erreth, whose recovery you desire, be sure that you write not a confutation of his errors: for ordinarily thats the way to fasten him in them, and make him worse. Some will think this a hard censure, to pass on learned godly men, whose hearts should be devoted to truth, and who pretend to love the light that doth disclose it: But there's no reasoning against common unquestionable experience. Who will doubt whether it can be so, when he sees it is so? Of all the Cart-loads of controversal writings that swarm in the world, how many can you name that convinced the Antagonist, and brought him to a recantation? Bethink your selves how many you can name. Nay how many that did not provoke and harden them? By secret explications, and loving debate, the mindes of many have been changed; and many by positive Asserting and proving the truth; and I confess some by controversal writings that were written against others (els I would never meddle that way) but how few by those that are written in confutation of themselves? As soon as you speak to men in the hearing of the world, they presently apprehend their reputation to be so engaged, that they are excieted to defend it with all their might; and instead of an impartial consideration of your arguments, and a ready entertainment of the truth, they bend their wits to study how to make good what once they have delivered, and to prove that true that once hath past their pens, that the world may not think them so weak as to have mistaken. Nay when they do profess to love the truth as truth, and to be willing to receive it; yet this Self is so neer them, and so potent with them, that they cannot easily suspect that which is their own; and especially if they have espoused it with any extraordinary endearment: It hath still a lovely aspect in their eyes, and they think so intentively what may be said for it, that they have scarce leisure or room or life to apprehend the force of that which is said against it. The first eyes which they cast on your writings, is with a desire to finde some such weaknesses in them, which may be matter of reproach, or insulting for them; and their endeavours are suited to their first intentions; and thus are they byassed in their reading from end to end. You therefore multiply their temptations to err, when you discover their error: For now you so involve the interest of their error with their own, that they see they cannot confess but with some disgrace, nor receive the truth without being so base as to confess themselves overcome: And therefore they muster up all their forces to maintain their opinions for the maintenance of their honour. It must be therefore for other mens sakes more then for their own, that you must enterprise such works: Unless you meet with those eminently humble self-denying Divines (they say there are some such in the world) that are most jealous of their own, through consciousness of their darkness, and take it for the greatest victory to be conquered by the truth. I doubt not but there are some such humble souls, where the window standeth open to the light, though pride and prejudice shut it with the most. Of whom if you please to esteem me one, I shall not much contradict you, but shall thence suppose that you will rather permit me to speak plainly against the sin, because I have suffered by it my self.

And as to those other Reverend persons, Dr. Owen and Mr. Blake, whose displeasure hath been so much kindled against me, I shall give you a brief account of my Reasons, from the quality of their writings, why I think that it is not to be done, at least by any particular examination of their words.

By the effects of what hath been said to them already, you may strongly conjecture what good it would do them to be contradicted again. In the former writings there appeared so much calmness, that one would have thought they had been men that could have endured a Reply: But for their second, they so much differ from the first as if the men were not the same. If you judged by the storms that arise in these writings, would you not think that I had somewhere reproached their persons, or done some hainous thing against them? But whether it be so, I am content that the indifferent judge. For the former (Dr. Owen) I desire that any of his tenderest friends will peruse those few lines in which I contradicted him, and if they can finde a word that is uncivil or abusive, I shall be ready to disown it, and to profess that I was guilty of provoking him to such an impatient entertainment. If I can understand my self and him, and may judge by his complaints and by the complexion of his dispute, the hainous injury that I have done him is that I have gain-said him; And I had thought that half the humility which some of his professions of himself do intimate that he is possessed of, would have caused a man to have judged this a pardonable fault. As long as his person is not once medled with, but onelyonly his words examined, and cause set against cause, and reason against reason, what harm is done to him? what bone is broken? or what one feather is plucked from his plume? Nay rather it hath occasioned the reparation of his honor with some; For some that before judged that he meant as he spoke, do now begin to believe that he meant better; since he so earnestly contendeth that he meant as the Orthodox, and seems to disclaim the Absolution of Unbelievers. And I must confess I do somwhat the less repent of those disputes that so much offend men, when they have so good an issue for the matter, though some accidental evils are occasioned by them. When a bad cause is disowned, I have the thing that I intended: And though it be very angrily that we agree, and close with somewhat a sharp collision, yet its well that we agree: Though I must say that it is so usual for men to love those of their own opinions, that I marvailed to finde a man with such high indignation endeavouring to prove himself of his Opponents minde; and that we should agree more passionately then we seemed to differ. As I little thought that Dr. Twisse had been of the same minde with my self and others in this point; But Mr. Iessop hath peaceably and temperately proved it: and I therein rejoyce: so I less thought that Dr. Owen had been of the same minde; but he hath hotly and haughtily proved it; and therein also I rejoyce. As long as we come neerer, and error goeth away with the disgrace, we may the better bear the displeasure of the Reconciled.

As for the great pains he hath taken about my Person (for the cause found him not work enough) to prove from my writings that I am so hypocritically proud, I know not well what return to make him that will be acceptable. Should I as faithfully admonish him, it would seem but a recrimination; and its like he hath those that are nearer him that do it, who need not take their ground from fame, and whose words may meet with less indignation: Should I tell him that a Minister is not to be prodigal of his reputation, because it is not his own, and that a man that is voluminously slandered, and that is Calumniated by the off-spring which such Reverend men as he hath midwived into the world, may possibly open his mouth against the Calumniator, and clear his innocency and the truth without a predominant degree of pride, I should probably incurr the censure of being yet more proud, by denying any thing that is charged upon me; though it were that Heresie it self which his parallel doth seem to his Readers to accuse me of. If I should tell him that I do unfeignedly confess the truth of his accusation, and that I was aware of Pride and Hypocrisie in my heart before he told me of them, and that the subduing of them is the business of my desires and care, its ten to one but I shall be proud in seeming so humble as to confess my pride, and that these (as he speaks) are but good words to cover it. But yet confess it I must and will, how proud soever I be in the confession.

One evidence of it which I have heard from the apprehension of others, viz. because I gave him not his due Titles of honour, is no whit cogent with me that know the case: and I think my justification is unanswerable: viz. that when my papers were written he was not Doctor, though he was when they came out of the press.

Whether it be not harder measure that I have met with at his hand, I desire you to judge by two or three particulars.

1. Though I did purposely again and again profess that I reckoned not all to be Antinomians that held only some one or few of their opinions, that are not the worst▪ and in particular, not all that held the very same opinion against which I argued with him, and withall entitle him [The most sober and learned man that I know of that writes that way] even for that opinion; yet doth he think meet to publish to the world that I [enroll him into the Troop of Antinomians,] when he is unable to produce a syllable of mine that hath such a signification. I think this dealing is not fair.

2. He untruly chargeth me with [traducing him for maintaining and giving countenance to the Propositions which I mentioned pag. 189.] on his pag. 9. and 3. and thereupon groundeth his tragical exclamations. I mentioned him as the author of these particular words which I annexed to his name, which I judged indeed unsound; but will it thence follow that I fasten on him all the errors that I mention in the precedent or subsequent pages? Having read my words inconsiderately, he exclaims against supposed injuries, which were caused by the mistakes of his own imagination, and are not to be found in any of my expressions. A stranger that reads his passionate scorns upon such occasions, and had not read the words which did offend him, would little think that so learned a man should make such a stir upon the pretence of a charge that was never brought against him, but only against others, a leaf before the mention of his name. If he ask, Why then did I there mention his name? I answer; As he defendeth that particular opinion which his words express, and not as defending all that other men are charged with: and I mentioned his, because it is too like to theirs, and they are encouraged by it, as Mr. Eyres allegations may evince.

3. When in the close of my confession pag. 462. I called so large a recital of other mens words, [a spending of much time to little purpose,] even to satisfie those that look too much at the names of men, he feigneth me to speak this in reference to the matter and manner of the Book.

4. His splendid fiction of the terrible conditions which I put upon my answerer, and his insultings thereupon, are only the effects of his inadvertency and mistakes (pag. 45.) as I shall shew anon.

Pag. 5. His pretended knowledge of me, as if it were upon much acquaintance and experience, doth argue much sagacity. I think I have seen him as oft as he hath seen me, and yet my knowledge of him is very small.

In his anatomizing of my pride pag. 6 he playes the after-game more plausibly than his Brethren played the fore-game. They go before, (and partly by his help) and publish abundance of Calumnies of me to the world, telling them not only that I am a Papist, but what books they were that made me a Papist, and what Emissaries I have in all parts of the Land, with much more of the like. When my discovery of their abuse did frustrate much of their design, this Learned man comes after them, and at last will prove me proud for contradicting them; forsooth for talking so much of my self. As if one of the Doctors friends should accuse me of theft, or murder at the Assize, and when I have justified my innocency, the Doctor should come after him, and tell how much I had spoken for my self, and prove me thereby to be proud and selfish. The truth is, I am conscious of so much of these sins, and so far believe the odiousness and danger of them, that I take such books as this Doctors for a great mercy; as knowing that strong corruptions must have something that is strong to work the cure, and a hard knot must have a sharp wedge; a Shimei may be sent of God for good; and how unrighteous soever the monitor may be, I am abundantly beholden to God that doth permit it; I had rather have a Messenger of Satan to buffet me, than be exalted above measure. I confess my pride needs sharper reprehensions than friends have ever used about me; and therefore they are better 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, whi…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 whats 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 its 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, without so great sin or offence as shall cast so Reverend a man into trembling and tears (no doubt, in compassion of me) I think its time to lay by this kinde of work.

I have been (it seems) also a temptation to him to tell the world such stories of my self, as I little thought such a man would have reported. As Mr. Robertson talks so confidently of his discourses with Mr. Hothkis who professes he never saw him or spoke a word to him; so doth my dear friend Mr. Blake tell the world as truly, once on the credit of his Informer, but again absolutely without such limitation, that I have given out that I have made some body my Convert, who professeth now to be satisfied in his Book: Whereas he might as truly have told them, that I take my self to be King of France or Spain. If he will bring his tale-carriers face to face, and prove by any faithful witness that I ever boasted of any man as my Convert, or ever said of one man living that I had made him my Convert, in any matter of such opinions, I will give you leave to spit in my face and call me lyar.

As fairly doth he cast his censures on the credit of his Informers at the Wocestershire combination (as he termeth it) [that the most prophane, where the Minister carries any Authority, are as forward as any] with more of the like: whereas if he had been unsatisfied in their proceedings, there are many Reverend Brethren there that would have readily given him an account of them, and a better information: And he was publickly told by them and me, that we were not gathering Churches or taking in members, and therefore not discerning who were meet; but only discerning who did account themselves as such, and profess themselves such already.

And as fairly doth he report that he hears I [bring in the name of Reverend Mr. Ball to give honor to this, that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and the reformed Churches is one and the same, or inconsiderably differing in this of justification;] And then tels us that he heard it himself and told Mr. Ball of it, and that he disclaimed it. Whereas 1. It was not half this much that I spake. 2. And do not know that ever I spake it to three men, or more. 3. And I must profess to the world that the man I had it from was Mr. Blake himself, and only him, and that at too several times, once mentioning the Papists doctrine, and the other time the Arminians about justification; and that he reported the neerness of us to them, as Mr. Ball's saying, but never told me with it one word of his disowning it. 4. And I never spake this my self, as approving the conceit, that the Papists and we did so inconsiderably differ herein. And now let the equity of Mr. Blakes dealing be judged of, whether he were a fit man publickly to accuse me of this crime, who was my only Author. I would never have mentioned these things, if he had not thus necessitated me. Though I am in doubt that he will take it ill, that in all these things I deny his Accusations, and do not by my silence interpretatively belye my self.

And as to the main bulk of his Disputes against me, I must needs say that there is such ordinary mistaking the sence, or quite overlooking the drift of my Arguments and Answers, and obscuring the matter with meer shifts and confusions, that if I should give a punctual answer to such a book, I think the perusal of it would be ungratefull to the Reader. For what profit can it be to any man to be convinced at so dear a rate, how much Mr. Blake hath miscaried in his arguing? I know my censures of his labors are like to be provoking: But who can help that? Had I thought him in the right, I had never contradicted him. Or could I yet see that I have erred, I must needs approve that light which did reveal it: And if I be in the wrong, it is no news for an erring man to think that he doth not err; and if he think not so, he doth not err in minde, but in word. But if I prove in the right, if it will not excuse me that I do but ward off the blow that he giveth me, not that I plead for Gods truth, at least let it excuse me that some evidence is cogent, and some light so constraining that I cannot chuse but think as I do think, till I have better evidence to the contrary than doth appear in Mr. Blakes Reply. And so little is my understanding at the disposal of my will, that if my life lay on it, I could not choose but be perswaded in my heart, that Mr. Blakes Reply is so full of mistakes, and built upon such misunderstanding of the words that he Replyeth to, that it tendeth more to darken the truth than to clear it, and to pervert the inconsiderate that will take things on trust, or think his cause best that hath the last word to colour it, and put a gloss upon it: and that there needs no more with the judicious Reader that is willing to try before he trust, and thinks the truth is worth his labour, than impartially to read over the words that Mr. Blake doth Reply to, for the manifesting of the insufficiency of his Reply, as to the main of the cause. He will think this is great confidence; but what Remedy? I think he is neer as confident: though both be not in the right. And I doubt not but Dr. Owen can see the height of my Pride in this confidence. But certainly when ever I come to be so humble as to believe all that such Reverend Brethren say, I must needs be so Proud as to disbelieve those that contradict them; For I see it a matter not to hoped for, that ever they that are so offended with me, should come to an agreement among themselves. As Dr. Owen and Mr. Blake are against me; so Mr. Blake and I are against Dr. Owen, and so its runs round. And if I should be so humible as to agree with one of them, what shall I do for another inconsistent humilitie, to make me of the others minde that is against him?

I must confess that there is one part of the contest between Mr. Blake and me at least, that I think well worthy a review, and that is the question about the nature of that faith which gives Right to Sacraments: For as it is a matter that comes so frequently into practice, and of such moment to particular persons, to Ministers and to the welfare of the Church, so I do not know of any that hath said so much for that cause which I yet account so bad, as Mr. Blake hath done; and indeed he hath put a fairer gloss on this than on any of the rest. And yet in my judgement he hath left it so naked, that a little diligence and impartially may do much to discover his opinions to be inconsistent (if reduced into practice) with the Purity of the Church, and such as is unworthy the patronage of Godly learned men. Yet in this I perceive his writings have success: For I hear that some Reverend Godly men of his acquaintance are so confident that he is in the right, that they marvel that ever I should hold the contrary, and blame me as defending a principal point in the Independent cause. The Lord enlighten us, and pardon it to us, which soever of us it be that is mistaken, and doth wrong the Church of God.

There are four several Titles that are or may be produced to Baptism: The first is sincere Saving Faith: The second is the profession of such sincere Faith: The third is a Dogmatical Faith, short of Justifying Faith: The fourth is a profession of that Dogmatical Faith. I say, that only they that have the Justifying Faith, have a Promise-Right to Baptism, properly so called; which I called a Right Coram Deo: but that the professors of such a Faith and their seed have an Analogical Consequential Right which followeth on Gods Precept to a Minister to Baptize them. This I called Right Coram Ecclesiâ, and is less properly a Right. And that the bare word Right might be no occasion of quarrel, I distinguished of Right; and shewed how far I affirmed or denyed it: But such distinctions and conclusions are nothing to the business with Mr. Blake; but fittest to be passed by. I conclude in a word that every professor of a Justifying Faith (that doth not invalidate his own profession) hath such a claim to Baptism for himself (if unbaptized) and his seed, as the Church must admit: But only the sincere Believer hath a Right from the Promise, and shall be taken by God for one to whom he is actually, as it were, obliged by his Covenant. But for the two later pretended Titles, viz. A Dogmatical Faith not Justifying, and the Profession of such a Faith, I say, they are no just Titles at all. Not but that a man who hath meerly a Dogmatical Faith within, may have a Title in Foro Ecclesiae; but this Faith is not his Title, but the profession of a Saving Faith: so that if he profess only his Dogmatical Faith, and not a Saving Faith, the Minister ought not to Baptize him. This is the brief of the state of the Controversie between Master Blake and me: And did I think that any such Reverend Brethren would ever have approved his Judgement in such a cause? Yea and some of them plead from the same effectual mediums, which are alone sufficient to prove the contrary; Its the course of Hilary and others against the Arrians; Hierome, Augustine, and many more against the Pelagians, and other hereticks, to call them to the constant practice of the Church in Baptizing, for the proving of the nature of that Belief that we are Baptized into, and the quality of the subject. I appeal to Christs institution of Baptism, and the uninterrupted practice of all Churches that ever I read of on the face of the earth to this day, and to the continued practice of the Churches in England, and all the Reformed parties, and all the rest of the Christian world, If they do not generally, Ethiopians, Greeks, Papists, Protestants with one consent require the profession of a Justifying Faith, I will quit this cause, and tell Mr. Blake that I have been mistaken, and cry him mercy. Nay if Mr. Blake himself do not require the profession of a Justifying Faith in the Parent of all that he admits to Baptism, I shall think him the only singular man I know alive in this business: But if he practice contrary to all his confident Argumentations, which shall we have respect to, his opinion or his practice? Where is the Church on earth that doth not Baptize into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and require in the adult, or the Parent of Infants, that they profess themselves at present to Believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and to renounce the World, the Flesh and the Devil? And therefore they commonly cause them to profess the Articles of the ancient Creed before they do Baptize them (which though it hath been lately disused by some, I gladly heard some Reverend Ministers in London yet use) which Creed (as Parker de Descensu, hath learnedly shewed) is the exposition of the words of the Baptismal Institution; and the sum of it is, I Believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost I think not only Perkins but our Divines commonly against the Papists have proved sufficiently that the words [I Believe in God the Father, in Jesus Christ, in the Holy Ghost, do signifie Affiance, as well as Assent. And I should hope that I need not be put to maintain it, that [to Believe with Assent and Affiance, in God the Father, Christ the Redeemer, the Holy Ghost, the witness and Sanctifier, renouncing the Devil, the World and the Flesh] is certainly Justifying Faith, at least. If they that say they thus Believe, do so indeed, I dare not be he that shall tell them they are yet condemned, and deny them to be the justifyed members of Christ. If they will not so much as profess thus to Believe, (yea and to Repent) I will never Baptize them, or theirs upon the…r account. Will Mr. Blake himself Baptize them, that will not thus profess? would ever the Church of Christ Baptize any but such? and yet some Reverend Brethren tell us, that the Church universally hath gone Mr. Blakes way, against that which I insist on. Now the Lord have mercy upon all our infirmities, and pity his poor Church, and bring his servants to so much Unity, that the universal practice of the Church in all ages and Nations, even among our selves, which we daily hear, and see, and our own selves practise, may not be among us a matter of controversie; for then, what are we likely to be agreed in?

Again I must crave pardon of this confidence: but if it seem to them to come from self-conceitedness and pride of my own judgement, or a loathness to let go what I have once received; as I willingly confess that I find such sins within me, and am no Christian, if I blame them not and hate them not in my self; so I will be bold to tell Mr. Blake and the world the very truth in this business,: which is, that the partiality that I have felt in the study of this point hath been for Mr. Blakes opinion against my own; and I had rather a great while (till the light convinced me) have found his opinion true, than my own. As I knew I should be taken for a defender of the Independants (which is a censure that I little regard) so I thought that I should the better comply with some Texts of the old Testament which Mr. Blake much urgeth, and some other reasons did cause Mr. Blakes opinion sometime so far to smile upon me, that I strove against the contrary truth, and studied all that I could to have confuted the Arguments for it, and was very willing to have found the truth on Mr. Blakes side: but it was too hard for me, and overcame me after some such reluctancy. For besides many other Reasons which I have mentioned, I find that there is no footing for a man in his way. He that will not take up with the bare name of a Dogmatical Faith, knows not (for ought I can find) what to take up with. I despair of ever prevailing with Mr. Blake, let him write never so much more on the subject, to give us a true Definition or Description of that Faith short of Justifying, which entitleth to Baptism, and to prove it from Gods word, or to agree with himself. Commonly he calls it a Dogmatical Faith: one would think now you might know the truth by this plain Name: but when I tell him that if it be meerly Dogmatical, then it is only in the understandings Assent, and importeth no consent of the Will, and that this is in the Devils, and may be in those that say, [We will not have this man reign over us, nor be our Saviour, because he will not let us have our lusts] (And would he Baptize those that should say so?) Hereupon Mr. Blake will take some consent of the Will, or else it cannot become a covenanting: but sometime he only describes it negatively (that it is not such as comes up to Justifying Faith): but who knows by this what it is? though he tell us what it is not: sometime he makes the expression of it to contain those two parts: 1. Confession of the necessity of justifying Faith: 2. An engagement or promise to Believe with a Justifying Faith. But when I interpret this promise to be [that he will so believe de futuro] he asketh me [how comes de futuro in?] as if every promise were not de futuro; Is it de praesenti? Doth he promise that he doth at the present so believe? why this is not to promise, but to profess: and is the thing that I plead for as necessary, which Mr. Blake resisteth: sure then it is de futuro, or it is not intelligible by common capacities. Well, if it must be de futuro, either its at the next moment, or some time at longer distance. To say, I consent not now, but I will the next moment, or tomorrow, is ridiculous: partly because as I have proved to him, such a person is not capable of making such a promise, so as should be rationally accepted in a covenant, and partly because we may end the controversie by forbearing his Baptizing one moment longer, or one day till he do indeed Believe and consent as he promiseth. But what time soever it be, as I told him, upon these terms, a man may say, [I believe the Creed and Scripture to be true, but because I know that I cannot serve God and Mammon, nor have Christ to justifie me, and live in my sins, I will not yet have God for my God, or Christ for my Lord and Saviour, nor the Holy Ghost for my Sanctifier, because I will not yet leave my sins, but hereafter I will,] would Mr. Blake Baptize such a man as this? In answer to such a question, he saith pag. 133. [I think it will be nothing hard for any honest Christian to say, that a man not justified may believe every fundamental Article, as to Assent, and that he may be convinced of the necessity of such Repentance, and accordingly to make profession of it, as Johns Converts were Baptized into &c.] And pag. 147. he saith [Seeing Mr. Baxter calls upon me further to declare my self further in this thing, I do believe and profess to hold, that he that upon hearing the Gospel preach't, and the truth of it published and opened, shall professedly abjure all other opposite waies whatsoever, and choose the Christian way for Salvation, promising to follow the Rules of it, is to be Baptized and his seed, &c.] And are these Descrptions of his Dogmatical faith the same with the former? Is not Repentance ever concomitant with Faith? John's Baptism was the Baptism of Repentance for Remission of sins; and if our Divines mistake not when they maintain to be the same with Christs, sure Faith was to go with that Repentance, and that Repentance which is for Remission of sins is not common, but saving and special. If therefore saving Repentance must not only be promised de futuro, but professed de praesenti, then doubtless so must that Faith which is inseparable. 2. And would Mr. Blake have us so Censorious as to say, that those men that [Abjure all other waies whatsoever, and choose the Christian way for Salvation, promising to follow the Rules of it,] if they do this sincerely, are not yet justified, or have not justifying faith? and that if they do it not sincerely, that is not yet justifying faith which they profess? For my part I am past doubt of it. If this be Mr. Blakes Dogmatical Faith, he and I are not much at distance about the Qualification of the Baptized, but about the nature of justifying Faith. For thats justifying in my judgement, which is but Dogmatical in his. Christ is the way to Salvation; the Sanctifying work of the Spirit, and the holy Love and Obedience of the Saints in this way, in subserviency to Christ, all these are the Gospel way to Salvation: the false belief of Erroneous men, and the many by-paths of the unregenerate, are the contrary which Satan perswades them to, and makes them believe may serve the turn. That man that Abjureth all other waies than that are opposite to the Christian way, and doth choose the Christian way for Salvation, is certainly a true Penitent and believeth to justification: or else I can have no hopes of being saved. Election is that term by which Amesius will needs express the proper formal act of justifying Faith. Not one of all these acts that Mr. Blake mentions, either 1. To Abjure all other opposite waies whatsoever. 2. To choose the Christian way of Salvation. 3. To promise to follow the Rules thereof. I say, not one of these can be uprightly and unfeignedly done by the unregenerate; by any that hath not true Repentance and justifying saith: Much less altogether. Judge then whether the profession of this, be not the profession of saving faith? and whether Mr. Blake know where to fix himself, and how to describe his Dogmatical faith? and whether he do not yield the cause that I am maintaining?

And whereas he takes it for [an egregious piece of affected nonsence, to say that Justifying faith is a promise] and still saith [that Justifying faith with him is the thing promised, or the thing whereto we do restipulate] pag. 171. I say, that he can never prove that the Church of Christ did know such a Baptismal covenant, wherein the first justifying faith was the thing promised (though the continuance may): And should I so Baptize any person, at age, (or an Infant in respect of the Parents Faith, which is his condition of Title) I should think I made a new covenant and a new Baptism; I mean, If I Baptized any without the present profession of justifying faith and Repentance, upon a promise that they will begin to Repent and Believe savingly for the time to come. Indeed the first faith and Repentance unto life, are so much above corrupted nature, and so much the special gifts of God, (which he hath given no man assurance of in particular, that hath them not already) that we must stay till men have them, before they are meet to be admitted upon promise that they will perform them.

It hath pleased some of the great Calumniators agents, to censure me as an Arminian, or half one, because I run not so far on the other hand as they. But its a hard case that I am in, who must needs be an Arminian, and yet must be forced to dissent from so dear a friend as Mr. Blake for fear of becoming one. I am confident that Mr. Blake in those points is Orthodox; but so could not I be, if I should entertain his opinion. For if I did believe that upon the acts of common Grace men have covenant or promise-right given them by God to be Baptized, I must needs believe that they had Right to Remission of sin in Christs blood; seeing God appointed no Baptism but what is for the Remission of sin; upon which account I have mightily displeased some Reverend friends that before over-valued me, who are favourers of the Arminian way, meerly because I oppose Mr. Blake in this point.

For my part, I still take faith to be the very internal covenanting with God in Christ, and not a condition of our own covenant: though it be the condition of Gods covenant or promise: and so that condition of Gods covenant, and our own actual covenanting are one and the same thing: our very first covenanting with him, or consent to his terms, is that faith on which he promiseth us Justification: though there be a further performance required to our Salvation. It is all one, in my account, to believe in Christ, and to become a Christian: and Baptism (commonly called our Christening) is not to engage us to begin to be Christians hereafter: but it is the solemnization of the Christian contract or marriage between Christ and the Soul, which is supposed to be made in heart before: so that they are then actually Christians inaugurated or publickly manifested. And (for all that Mr. Blake hath said to the contrary) he that professeth any faith only, that is short of justifying faith, is not a Christian in the covenant-sence, but is only Equivocally or Analogically so called. And whereas Mr. Blake makes it more tolerable if I had used the word [Analogically] then to use the word [Equivocally,] if he had pleased to observe it, I frequently put them together as here, [Equivocally or Analogically:] so that if that will satisfie him, he might have been satisfied sooner. Yet I take the Scotists controversie to be yet undecided, whether some terms be not both Analogical and Univocal, and some both Analogical and Equivocal; (which they handle on the Question, Vtrum Ens dicatur Vnivocè de Deo & Creaturâ) or rather that the later clause is past doubt; and therefore in our ease it is both. Nor am I yet perswaded that his old Testament covenanters, (which are the great moving instance) did profess only such a faith as was short of Justifying: and they that lived in such scandal as was inconsistent Notoriously with their profession, were by the law to be put to death: and then they were past begetting Children to plead a right in Circumcision.

And whereas he is so confident that according to my opinion, the Baptism of the unjustifyed is a Nullity, and that they must be Baptized again, and saith, that [its much to be feared, if not certainly to be concluded, that the Major part by far of the Worcestershire combination consists of unbaptized persons, &c.] pag. 142, 143. I answer 1. it is a meer naked unproved assertion, that any such consequent doth follow on these grounds: Nor can he ever prove it. If the outward ordinance were rightly administred, and the inward covenanting of the heart were not performed, it is not that which was well done that must be done again, but that must be done which was at first omitted, even sincere internal covenanting or believing. 2. But it is much more disputable according to his principles, whether all that he should so Baptize, must not be rebaptized? For as the ancient Councils which were against Cyprians and the rest of the Carthaginians Rebaptizing, did yet decree that all should be rebaptized that were Baptized by the Paulionists (not that they allowed really of twice Baptizing, but that the first was but Baptism Equivocally so called) because they Baptized not into the Name of the Trinity; so if we should upon the new Doctrine take up a new Baptism, upon a meer Dogmatical faith, which is not a believing in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but only a Believing that there is a Father, Son and Holy Ghost, (and add, if you will, a Promise to believe in them hereafter) I should be hardly put to it to prove these persons truly Baptized, and, that it being a Nullity, all were not to be done again: and yet some Brethren of Mr. Blakes minde think, that my Judgement opens the way to Rebaptizing; when I doubt it will be hard to avoid it, as to every person, in the way that he disputeth for. Not that I think that any one should be rebaptized that is Baptized by Mr. Blake or any of them. For I am confident that neither he, nor they did ever practice their own doctrine, nor ever Baptized one person but upon the profession of justifying faith it self.

3. But why do they not see, that on their own grounds many of their own Baptizings would be Nullities, and the persons be Rebaptized. If a Dogmatical faith it self be of necessity to the Being of Baptism, then what shall be done with those many hundred Children among us, whose Parents discover to us that they have not that Dogmatical faith? How many have we oft occasion to speak with, that marvail when we tell them what Christ is, and hath done and suffered for us, as if they had never hard it before, when yet they sit under our teaching day by day? like Dr. John White's Catechumene, that being asked what Jesus Christ was? answered that [she did not know; she was never taught so far; but sure enough it is some good thing, or it should never have been put into the Creed.] Would Mr. Blake have the Children of all these rebaptized, or not? If yea, then he is more than I for rebaptizing: if not, then how will it follow any more from my judgement that the Children of the unjustifyed must be Rebaptized? I cannot conceive what he can say (without going to the right of remote ancestors, or the 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 laymen 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 the Lord whom we most offend, in the abundance of his Grace doth forgive us both. I must confess that when I think I have a call to dispute, I do withall think that I am called to lay open the nakedness of the cause which I oppose to the utmost; and being perswaded that I speak against that which is against God, me thinks if I do not effectually manifest its falshood, I do nothing, whereupon I finde, that what is spoken against the cause is taken as a dishonour to the person, and he takes himself to be wounded or wronged by it, when I never touch the person at all: so that if I do but once name the Imposture of a common distinction, Mr. Blake comes on, as if I had called all those learned men cheators or impostors that use that distinction (between fides, qua, & quâ) yea even those that condescended privately to write to me; and so parrallels me with Mr. Craudon herein. Mr. Craudon spoke of persons, and I speak of distinctions and reasons: Is not this a meer violence, as if it were to raise an odium, and set men together by the ears? When I mention the weakness of his own arguing, he tells me, I must not answer a fool according to his folly, and marvails I will set my wit against such a ones. Is not such dealing a sufficient prohibition to dispute? If I shew not the weakness of an Argument I do nothing: If I do, I make the Author a fool. If I shew that an Argument is unsound, or a conclusion false: I make him false; If I shew that some common distinction hath unobservedly deceived many, I make all the Learned that use it impostors, even my friends that privately vouchsafe me their writings. Well I am satisfied, and take the prohibition. This book of Mr. Blakes I proclaim unanswerable. These are too hard and unjust terms for me to dispute upon: Especially when the main issue of a large volume, must be but to reckon up a Dear and Reverend Brothers mistakes.

Yet I must confess that the controversies about the object of Justifying Faith (whether Christ as Lord) and the object of Baptism, do seem to me of so great weight and use to the Church, to be well discust, that I will not peremptorily resolve against medling so far with his book, if any more judicious do convince me it is my duty.

But I have run much beyond my first intention: I thought but to give you some reasons, why I should not write any Rejoynder to these learned Reverend men Dr. Owen, Mr. Robertson or Mr. Blake: and giving you my Reasons, I find I have done some of that, which those Reasons were brought against, and from which I intended to excuse myself.

But having run so far with the other, I shall say the less of Mr. Robertson: his dealing with me is like others that have gone before him and do accompany him: and I am now so used to it, that I the less marvail at it. Of this zealous Brutus I must needs say. Nescio quid juvenis iste vult; sed quicquid vult, vehementer vult. Its enough to make us admire Gods patience and mercy, that will forbear and pardon such things to the Sons of men; and its a sad discovery of the lamentable case of the Church on earth, that Grace should have so much corruption with it, and that the Church must make use of such sinful guides as we are, in the way to glory. For though the Scripture saith that a false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that telleth Lyes shall not escape; and that Railors shall not enter into the kingdom of God; yet I hope they may have Grace that do it in a mistaken zeal for God, though Self may have too much hand in it. But we may see in our miscarriages that it is not for nothing that God hath let loose such Judgements upon Professors, and such floods of reproach upon us our selves that serve at his Altar, as lately he hath done. I dare say that many a Heathen would have scorned to have given out against his greatest Enemy such volumes of notorious impudent falshoods and imprudent railings as Mr. Robertson, and other of his spirit have lately done against one that was none of their enemy. Might I but have truth from them, I care not (for my own part) for the worst of their words. But who knows how to confute such volumes, whose very substance is compounded of gross falshoods and calumnies: Either the Reader of Mr. Robertsons Book, and his associates, will also read mine, or they will not. If they will not, let them take their course, and believe what they list, and not what is true: for how can I help it, if I write again what likelyhood that they will read it, that will not read that which is written already. If they lose by it no more then I, what cause have I to care? But if they will but read the book which Mr. Robertson opens his mouth against, I desire no more; if that will not satisfie them, and make them lament over the spirit of this man, I have no more to say to them, they are none of the men for whom I write. But Mr. Robertson hath little cause to say that I am for Justification by Works, when I hope that such men as he are justified, whose works are such, as I once hoped no man had been so guilty of, that had the least fear of God before his eyes. I profess I marvail whats the matter that the wasps of the Nation are gathered about my ears, I cannot but hope yet, that there are few more such in England, as those that I have had to deal with.

His first assault of me is about the Inception of Gods immanent acts. But never had I such a confuter before; no not Mr. Craudon himself. He bestows a whole Epistle, (on part of his book) to tell the Reader how he detests my Blasphemy: and thats my confutation. Not a line of my Book doth he cite and confute. But in general tells me that I affirm new Immanent acts in God: and then cryes out upon the blasphemy. Must we write confutations of such men as these? No: they that will believe them, let them take that they get by it; its nothing to me, that cannot remedy it. What if twenty men will swear that I have written there is no God? must I write against them all? I laid down my mind in the case that I am thus dealt with about, in several propositions as plain as I could speak: the sum of the chief part of them was this; that the substance of the Act (as commonly called) that is the Essence of God, is neither multiplyed nor beginneth nor endeth; but the Relations and extrinsick denominations are many, and may begin and end. Yet would I not presume to determine (with Pet. Hertado. de Mendoza and others) that the Relations are ex parte Dei, but only took what the Thomists grant that they are ex parte creatura, whence arise the denominations of God; and doth not this Brother know that the highest Antiarminians on earth do grant this, and none that I know of did ever deny it. Yet doth this judicious Pedagogue, (before he understandeth what I have said, and while Dr. Kendal himself contradicteth him in print) fall on with such words as these, pag. 7. [I never did abhor with greater detestation and indignation the Principles of any man, and the defence of them than I did that one most blasphemous Principle of yours and your defence of it about the Immanent acts of God in his knowledge and will as if they were or could be de novo, &c.] All the rest is but to prepare the way for this sentence; and to attend it, and this is his Epistle.

And that you may see what impossibility there is of pleasing all men, see what he saith of my Apologie against Mr Blake, which cost so much on the other side; p. 4, 5. [Though in the first three or four hours reading that morning, of the first part, of your Apologie to Mr. Blake, I was very much taken with so much of a profound, deep & rational Judgement, with such a clear and solid understanding, & with so great a height of a piercing wit, as I did apprehend in some of your reasonings & explications of some points by you holden forth there, &c.] And so he goes on to shew that in the afternoons Reading against Dr. Kendall, I struck down all the milk that I had given in the morning. Many men, many minds. Even fair fall you Sir, for I see you are a kind man when the fit comes on you; and when I please you, your commendations swell over the banks of common discretion. But what shall I give you to make Mr. Blake of your opinion? Or to teach me how I may please you both, with the rest of the offended?

Another part of Mr. Robertson's task, is to satisfie the world how ignorant Mr. Hotchkis and I are of the Hebrew, and careless of it aswel as ignorant. And I may undo the man if I should confute him here: for he hath bound himself in a most solemn Obligation, p. 82. that if he [do not make it good what here is challenged, against all the four eyes of us both, (that both of us have no eies at all to see with of our own, & therefore see nothing at all with our own eye in those points, but all the dim sight we have, its only by seeing with other mens eyes, &c.) then he promises to shut & turn away both his own eyes from ever looking upon a book again whilest he breaths, even the Bible it self, w^ch yet he would not do for a kingdom, or his Life.] And should I be so unmerciful now as to confute this man, if I could do it? No, let Mr. Hotchkis consider what he hath done in doing it himself. He hath left him under little less then a solemn Vow, never to read the Bible or any Book more. Doth not this man think himself very wise in his zeal? [foreign.] Mr. Hotchkis saith, he had read over the Hebre… Bible before Mr. Robertson was born.

And is it not (think you) an honest and sober dispute upon which he brings out his Hebrew, when I had so fully explained myself in my Confession, of which he is pleased to take no notice? I still maintain that Punishment properly so called, hath (at least) two species, Paradeigmatical and strictly Vindictive, and Nouthetical or Castigatory: and so that Chastisement is truly and properly called punishment; but not of the same species, with the former vindictive or destructive punishment. Now what doth this Learned Brother but over and over again, so far lay by the ninth Commandement and the fear of God, as to face down me, and assure his Reader, that I affirm and maintain the sufferings of the Godly to be not only Chastisements, but proper Punishments, yea Revenging Punishments for the satisfaction of God as a Judge? And what should one say to such a man as this? and how is he to be dealt with? Proper Punishments (I say) they are; because I maintain that Castigations are proper paternal punishments. And are not all the Philosophers that ever defined punishment, (so far as I know) agreed in it? But is this to say, They are vindictive, satisfactory to Justice, or more than chastisements?

If this good man would have made ostentation of his Hebrew, or called for Scholars to his School, let any indifferent man be Judge, whether it had not been a more innocent and honest course to have done as the Montebanks and Lozenge-makers do, to have put it into some weekly News-book, that in such a street, at such a sign, there is a famous Hebrew School-master, &c. than to do he knows not what? For Mr. Hotchkis and me the matter's not great: but he trode under foot Modesty, Conscience, Truth, the Credit of his Profession, the famous Translators of the Bible (egregiously befriending Gregory Martin and his Rhemists): and I wish he have not degraded the far greater part of the godly Ministers of England, for want of Hebrew as well as us: Nay how many can he name from the Apostles daies, till a few hundred years ago, that are not degraded by him, in almost all the Church. The Origens and Hieroms were so few, that wo to the Church if it had no more: And something may be in it to cut the comb of a Paedagogues insolency, that those that were best at Translations, were so bad Divines for all that, as to the sense. We had been sure all marrd if the degraded Augustines that were ignorant of the Hebrew, had not been better Divines than Origen and Hierom were. But what! hath God bid or permitted this man to speak all this for nought? No: I hope that some will be stirred up by his language to a more diligent study of the Hebrew Text; and that this good end may by the over-ruling providence be attained by it.

But me thinks he should not trust so much to his great Argument, that [he is unworthy to be Christs Messenger that takes the signification of the words upon trust:] For how doth Mr. Robertson with all his Hebrew know the signification of one Hebrew word, but upon trust? How knows he it, but on the word of his Master that tells him so? and what other way is there of knowing the signification of any Language whatsoever?

As for that about [Mental Remission] which he makes such a stir with, I shall add this to what is said. There are two things among men that are called by some Mental Remission: 1. A purpose to forgive a fault, (even before it is committed) when it is done. 2. The actual turning of the minde from Anger and thoughts of Punishing, to Reconciliation and Acceptance, and the Remitting those former thoughts of Punishment. The former is not properly pardon at all, and is in God from 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 Justification.

So pag. 453. he affirmeth, that [in my opinion (an infant) is uncapable of any real change by the spirit] With many such Assertions, which I never uttered, nor believed.

And when I told him of such a passage in his former Book, (about making Sincerity the Rule) rather then he will acknowledge the visible mistake, he again replyeth, as if I wronged him to charge it on him. And why so? Because he named me not? when yet it is as plainly manifest that its me that he chargeth it on, as the rest before and after, which he denyeth not. But again I must recall my self, and draw to an end.

Upon all these considerations I must be excused from the foresaid unprofitable Works: But if it appear necessary to vindicate any particular Truth in another way, I shall not withdraw, while I am able to do it. As I find that the very Answering of men doth provoke, so when the Cause of God doth not require it, I can believe that I am among those that are to be foreign, Tit. 2.9. not contradicting or answering again, as servants must be to their Masters; much less should I foreign, but imitate that blessed pattern, 1 Pet. 2.23. which O that I could more do!

Yet would I not disswade any from a necessary Defence of Truth: for I know that foreign, and that we must foreign, Tit. 1.9, 10, 11.

But for my part, I see not yet any Call to such a Work: and if I err, I desire that no man by me may be drawn into Error; and if I be in the right, I know not how to importune men to my opinions, if they do not very nearly concern their salvations: If their stomacks be against them, I am not good at drenching or cramming. The Lord pardon all our miscarriages, and direct you and succeed you in your labours for his Church. I remain,

Your Brother in the Work of the Gospel, RICH BAXTER Octob. 1. 1655.

Tales meorum Scriptorum Judices velim, qui Responsionem non semper desiderent; quum his quae leguntur audierint aliquid contradici. Augustin.

Right to Sacraments, Disputation 5

The fift Disputation.

De Nomine. Whether Hypocrites and other Unregenerate persons be called Church-members, Christians, Believers, Saints, Adopted, Iustified, &c. Univocally Analogically, or Equivocally?