Right to Sacraments, Preface
The Preface.
IT is not long ago since it was exceeding far from my thoughts, that ever I should have been so much imployed in Controversies with dear and Reverend Brethren, as since that time I have been. I repent of any temerity, unskilfulness or other sin of my own which might occasion it, and I am much grieved that it hath occasioned offense to some of the Brethren whom I contradict: But yet I foresee that some light is like to arise by this collision, and the Church will receive more good then hurt by it. We are united in Christ, and in hearty Love to one another, (which as my soul is certainly conscious of; so I have not the least doubt of it in most of my Brethren with whom I have these Debates) we are so far agreed, that we do without scruple profess our selves of the same faith, and Church: and where the Consequences of our Differences may seem to import any great distance, which we are fain to manifest in our Disputes, we lay that more upon the opinion then the persons, as knowing that they discern not and own not such Consequences. And if any salt be mingled in our Writings (which is usual in Disputes that are not lifeless) or it is intended rather to season then to fret, or to bite that which each one takes to be an error, rather then the man that holdeth it; (If there be two or three toothed contenders that have more to do with persons then with doctrines, that's nothing to the rest) And thus on both sides those that erre, and those that have the truth, do shew that Error is the thing which they detest, and would disclaim it, if they saw it; and that Truth is it which they love, and are zealous for it so far as they know it▪ And doubtless the comparing of our several Evidences, will be some help to the unprejudiced, to the attainment of a clearer discovery of the Truth.
The greatest thing that troubleth me, is to hear that there are some men, yea (which is the wonder) some Orthodox Godly Ministers (though I hope but few) that fetch an Argument from our Disputes against the motions to Peace and Unity and unquestionable Duties, which on other occasions are made to them; and if any Arguments of mine be used to move them, they presently reply, [If he would promote peace, he should not break it, by dissenting from or writing against his Brethren.] But what if I were as bad as you can imagine, will you therefore refuse any Evidence that shall be brought you, or neglect any duty that God shall call you to? Will my unpeaceableness excuse yours? But stay Brethren; do you build the Churches Peace on such terms as these? Will you have Union and Communion with none but your own Party, that are in all things of your own Opinions? If these be your grounds, you are utterly schismatical in your foundations, though you should actually get all the Christians in Europe to be of your minde. O! me thinks men that are humble (as all are that shall be saved) should be so far acquainted with the weakness of their understandings, as to have meaner thoughts of them, and not to make them the Standard of the Churches Judgement, or the Center of its Peace. There's no two men of you all, of one minde in all things among your selves.
But I confess your faults excuse not mine; and I am much too blame, if I be not willing to hear of them & reform them. But I can do nothing against the truth; it is not in my power to be of all mens minds, when they are of so many and inconsistent. If I agree with some Reverend Brethren, it must displease the rest by disagreeing from them. And therefore I have long resolved to study to please God, (who may be pleased) instead of men, and do my best to find out the Truth, and entertain it and obey it, as far as I can understand it, and to propound it to others, and leave it to God and them whether it shall be received or not. And for my self to be heartily thankful to any, that will help me to know more, and deliver me from any Error that I am in.
The Differences that these Brethren have blamed me for are in these three points or four: 1. About the Interest of Faith, Repentance, and other Graces in our Justification. Of this I have not heard from any Brother, that yet he is unsatisfied, since I published my Confession; save what is in an Epistle to the Sermons on Iohn 17. to which I have long ago prepared an Answer (and the by-exceptions answered in this Book.)
2. About proving Christianity by Argument; of which I have heard from none since I published my Papers against Infidelity. 3. About the Universality of Redemption: and 4. About the Controversies of this Book.
For the former of these last, I find a Reverend, Learned man endeavouring to load me with some note of Singularity, I mean D. Ludovicus Molinaeus, in his Preface to his Paraenesis ad aedificatores Imperii in Imperio (a Book that hath much Learning, and more Truth then is fairly used, the face of it being writhen to frown upon them that own it, and Parties wronged even where Truth is defended, though through the unhappiness of the Distinction oft clouded when it seems explicated, and through — I know not what, the Controversie seldom truly stated.) This Learned man hath thought it meet, for the disgracing Amyraldus, by the smalness of his success to mention me thus, as his only Proselyte in England, [Forsan eo consilio Amyraldus cudit suam Methodum, ut Lutheranis subpalparet, & gratiam apud eos iniret, sperans per eam Lutheranos reconciliatum iri Calvinistis: sed reverâ dum falsam studet inire gratiam, nulli parti eo nomine gratus est, nec ulla parte haeret apud Lutheranos, ut censet Calovius clarissimus Wittemberge Theologus; nec de vincit sibi Anglos aut Belgas: In Belgio enim nulli nisi Arminiano; in Anglia uni Baxtero, apprime placet ejus Methodus.] And three leaves after, [Sed in solatium Dallęo, ut Amyraldus Baxterum Anglum, sic Dallę is Woodbrigium itidem Anglum, peperit proselytam & admiratorem] It is an ungrateful task to answer a Writing, whose Error is a multiplication of palpable U…truths in matter of fact; for they are usually more unwillingly heard of then committed. But I shall lay these following considerations in the way of this Learned man, where his conscience may find them 1. If in England Amyraldus Method do please uni Baxtero, and yet Dallaeus have proselyted Woodbridge also, and Amyraldus and Dallaeus Method be the same, Quaer. Whether Baxter and Woodbridge are not the same man? 2. Qu. Whether this Learned man know the judgement of all England? 3. I meet with so many of Amyraldus mind in the point of Universal Redemption, that if I might judge of all the rest by those of my acquaintance, I should conjecture that half the Divines in England are of that opinion. 4. Is it not a thing famously known in England, that this middle way of Universal Redemption hath been by Writing and Disputing and preaching maintained by as excellent Divines for Learning, Judgement, holiness, and powerful Preaching (as far as we can judge) as ever England bred? Its famously known that Bp Vsher was for it, that Bp Davenant, Bp Carleton, Bp Hall, Dr Ward, Dr Goad, Mr Balcanquall, being all the Divines that were sent to the Synod of Dort from Brittain, were for it: and Davenant, Hall, and Ward, have wrote for it: that those holy, renowned Preachers, Dr Preston (of which read Mr Tho. Ball in his life), Dr Stoughton, Mr Wil. Whately, Mr Wil. Fenner, M Iohn Ball, Mr Ezek. Culverw…ll, Mr Rich. Vines, &c. were for it: And many yet living do ordinarily declare their judgment that way. And are not these more then unus Baxterus? An excellent Writing of Ioannes Be…gius to that end, was lately translated here into English, and published by Mr Mauritius Bohemus, a Divine residing in Leicestershire. 5. Is it not famously known that the Divines of Breme go this way, and the Duke of Brandenburg's Divines, & that Wendeline complaineth to Spanhemius of it: and that Ludovicus Crocius, Mat Martinius, and Iselburge (besides the Brittish Divines gave it in as their judgement at the Synod of Dort; so that the Synod hath nothing against it; and nothing but what this unus Baxterus, and all of his mind do readily subscribe to herein. Nay, is it not manifested that Dr Twiss himself hath frequently written for it? 6. Can he that knows the Lutherane and Arminian doctrine believe both these, that the Arminians in Belgia are pleased with Amyraldus Method, and yet that nullâ parte haeret apud Lutheranos? 7. Can he that hath read what Davenant, Camero, Amyraldus, Lud. Crocius, &c. have written against the Arminians, and what Grotius, Tilenus, and others of them have written against them, be yet perswaded that the Arminians are pleased with Amyraldus Method, any further then to be less dispeased with it then with some others? 8. When Mr Woodbridge doth profess but that he is for Universal Redemption in Davenant's sense, [especially since he read Daile, &c.] doth this Learned man well infer thence, that he was Daile's proselyte, when the contrary is intimated, yea is the [fatetur se nondum concoquentem Amyraldi Methodum.] true or false? 9. When this unus Baxterus did write a Book for Universal Redemption in this middle sense, before he ever saw either Amyraldus, Davenant, or any Writer (except Dr Twiss) for that way, and was ready to publish it, and stopt it on the coming forth of Amyraldus, and was himself brought to this judgement, by reading Dr Twiss, and meditating of it and had in print so long ago professed these things, whether this Learned man should after all this publish to the world, that I am Amyraldus proselyte? I speak but as to the truth of the report; for as to the reputation of the thing, I should think it a great benefit if I had the opportunity of sitting at the feet of so judicious a man as I perceive Amyraldus to be 10. Whether is Calovius a competent witness of the judgement of the Lutherans in general, or a witness capable of dishonouring Amyraldus, when he so unpeaceably and voluminously poureth out his fiery indignation against the moderate Lutherans themselves, that are but willing of Peace, under the name of Calixtians, seeking to make them odious from the honorable name of Georgius Calixtus, who went with them in that peaceable way? 11. If it be David Blondell that he means, when he saith of Daile's Book [Obstetricante magno illìc Viro, sed Armimianorum cultore] (and Blondell only prefaceth to it) Whether any that hath read the Writings of Blondell, and heard of his fame, should believe this accusation? or rather — 12. Is it a certain Truth or a Calumny that is thus expressed of Dallaeus, [Certum est tamen hâc Apologiâ maluisse Arminianorum ordinibus inseri, quàm sedem inter contrà-remonstrantes tenere]? And is it certain, that Dr Molin knows the mind of Dallaeus better then he doth his own, or is sooner then himself to be believed in the report of it? 13. Whether the desire which he expresseth that Camero had been expelled, and the words that he poureth forth against him, do more dishonour Camero or himself? And if that Article of Justification were sufficient ground of his condemnation and expulsion, and consequently Olevian, Scultetus, Vrsinus, Paraeus, Piscator, Alstedius, Wendeline, Gataker, and abundance more should have tasted of the same sauce, Whether these persecuting principles savour not of too high an esteem of their own judgements, and tend not either to force an implicite faith in the Ministery, or to depopulate the Church, and break all in pieces? And whether more credit is to be given to the judgement of this Learned man, against Camero, or to the general applause of the Learned, Pious and Peaceable Divines of most Protestant Churches? For instance, such as Bp Hall's, who in his Peace-maker, p. 49. saith of him, that he was [the Learnedst Divine, be it spoken without envy, that the Church of Scotland hath afforded in this last age.] 14. Whether this Learned man had not forgotten his former Triumph in the supposed unsuccessfulness of Amyralds Method, and the paucity of his partakers or approvers, when he wrote this in deep sorrow for the Churches of France, [Seriò ingemisco Patriae & Ecclesiis in ea reformatis, quod jam totos viginti annos Methodus Amyraldi impunè regna verit: nemine intrà Galliam hiscere audente, aut ullo vindice veritatis ibi exurgente] & do these words shew his desire of Peace or Contention in the Church? 15. Whether it be truth that he saith, that all the Divines of the Assembly at Westminster were against Amyraldus Method, when Mr Vines hath often and openly owned Davenant's way of Universal Redemption; and others yet living are known to be for it? 16. Whether it be proved from the cited words of their Confession, c. 8. §. 5. that such was their judgement, when they express no such thing? And I have spoken with an eminent Divine, yet living, that was of the Assembly, who assured me that they purposely avoided determining that Controversie, and some of them profest themselves for the middle way of Universal Redemption. 17. Is there one man in Oxford or Cambridge (besides himself) that believes his next words, [pari obelo confodiunt hanc Methodum quotquot sunt bodie Doctores & Professores Oxoniae & Cantabrigiae] except on supposition that the foregoing words be untrue which pari relateth to? 18. Is it probable that Dr Twiss was an enemy to that doctrine of Redemption which he hath so often asserted, viz [That Christ dyed for all men, so far as to purchase them pardon and salvation on condition they would repent and believe; and for the Elect, so far further as to procure them faith and repentance it self:] which he hath oft in many Writings as to Mr Cranford's charge concerning his severe accusation of Dallaeus, and judging his very heart to be guilty of such dissimulation, as [that he wrote not seriously, but contrary to what he thought, and that nothing could be more illiterate. I shall not put the question, whether it be probable that these words could pass from such a man, because he is alive to vindicate himself, if the report be false, or to own it, if true. 19. Do all the contemptuous expressions of a Dissenter so much dishonour the judgement of Dallaeus, as this Dissenters own praise of his former Writings doth honour it, when he saith of him, [A quo nihil hactenus prodii… quod non esset judicii acerrimi, eruditionis reconditissimae, & dostrinae sanctissimae, aut candidissimum pectus non referret; in quo nulla suspicio malignitatis insideret; multò minùs eâ aetate seriâ & serâ erupturae, cùm lenit albescens animos capillus] This is enough to make a stranger conjecture, that the man is not grown either such a fool as to err so grosly as is pretended, or such a knave as to write in the matters of God against his own judgement. And indeed he that will prove himself a wiser, a much wiser man in these matters then Dallaeus, Blondel, Amyrald. &c. must bring another kind of evidence for the honor of his Wisdom, then Dr L. Molin's Preface or Paraenesis is. 20. Is it not an indignity to the dead, which the living should hear with a pious indignation, for this Learned man to feign that Bp Vsher thought so contemptuously of Amyraldus Method? Whatever he might say of him in any other respect, its well known that he owned the substance of his doctrine of Redemption. The high praises therefore which Dr Molin doth give to this reverend Bishop, do dishonour his own judgement, that makes the Bishops doctrine so contemptible and gross. The like dealing I understand, some Arminian Divines (I am loath to name them) have used against this reverend man: One of them of great note hath given out, that he heard him preach for universal Redemption, and afterwards spoke to him, and found him owning it; therefore he was an Arminian: and I hear a Northamptonshire Arminian hath so published him in print. O the unfaithfulness of men seeming pious! The good Bishop must be what every one will say of him. Though one feigneth him to be of one extream, and the other of the other extream, when (alas!) his judgement hath been commonly known in the world about this 30 years to be neither for the one, nor the other, but for the middle way. Do you call for proof? If I give you not better then either Dr Molin, or the two Arminian Divines give, let me be branded for a factious Calumniator of the dead, whose name is so honourable, that the forgery is the greater sin. First there is a Manuscript of his own in many mens hands, dated March. 3. 1617. at Dublin, (which I intend to print, if no one else do it first) which asserteth this Doctrine in the same middle way as Davenant and Camero do. And I askt him whether he yet owned it, (not long before his death), and he said, He did, and was firm in that judgment; I asked him to whom he wrote it, and he told me (as I remember) to Mr Culverwell (I am certain it was to him, or to Mr Eyr, who, he told me, was the man that fell so foul on Mr Culverwell.) 2. If my own word be not sufficient, Dr Kendal can bear witness that he was present, once when he heard him own this judgement of Universal Redemption in the middle way, and intimated that Dr Davenant and Dr Preston were minded of it by him; (as reioycing that he sooner owned it;) and that we cannot rationally offer Christ to sinners on other grounds. Now because the Bishop went this middle way, when he speaks against the Arminians, some feign him to speak against his own doctrine. And when he spoke for Universal Satisfaction, the Arminians say he was turned to them. This is the faithfulness of the world! It shames and grieves me to say, Of siding Divines; and as much almost to say, Of a publick Professor of History in Oxford: For the principal honour of a Historian, is his veracity, and impartial fidelity; and how much of that this Preface to the Paraenesis is guilty of, I leave to consideration upon the taste that is here given. But enough of this.
The fourth and last particular in which I offend some few Brethren by my judgement, is that which is the subject of these ensuing Disputations. But I can truly say of this as of the rest, 1. That if I should change my judgement and please these Brethren, its like I should displease many more. For 2. I take it for granted, that I go in the common rode that the Church of Christ hath gone in from the beginning to this day; so far am I from singularity. 3. I am most certain that my thoughts were so far from intending singularity or the disturbance of the Church, by these or other points in Controversie, that I apprehended them strongly to be the truths that must be instrumental to the Churches peace when ever God seeth us meet to attain it. And though I never took a point for true eo nomine, because it was in the middle, or tended to peace, yet I purposely chose out these truths rather then other to vindicate, because they tend to peace. And to the praise of God I speak it, that in those antient common disturbing Controversies between the Arminian and Antiarminian, Lutheran and Calvinist, Iesuite and Dominican, I have discerned those Principles which quiet my own mind, and which I am confident, were they received according to their evidence, would quiet the now-contending Christian world: But I am past doubt, to be derided as arrogant for this confidence; and should the Principles in a Method with Evidence be propounded, though purposely to heal the divisions of the Church, many of the several parties would but rage at the Reconciler, and pour out their impotent accusations and reproaches against him, because he would attempt the healing of their divisions, and would feign him to be the Author of some new Sect, for seeking to put an end to Sects. But let any man make good my just demand, that the Principles propounded shall have an impartial reception according to their Evidence, and I will give you security to make good my confidence, that they shall quiet the Chrstian world hereabouts. But I know this is to be expected from none but God; nor at all on earth in any perfection.
As to the present Controversie, it seemed good to Mr Blake to begin it with me; and to my Defense he hath opposed an angry Reply; not to my whole Book (as I did to that part of his which concerned me) but to here and there a scrap, disordered, and maimed, and parcelled as he thought good. I was in doubt whether to make any rejoinder or further Defense; but while I doubted, divers Reverend Brethren from several parts wrote to me, to move me neither to be silent, nor to answer all his words, which would be tedious to the Reader, but to handle the Controversies by way of Disputation, and to bring in Mr Blake's Arguments under them, so far as shall be thought necessary. Though at first I scarce liked this way, as seeming not a full answer, but such a course as he took with me, yet I did acquiesce in the judgement of my Brethren. But yet indeed, I think I had never printed a word at all in Defense of my self against Mr Blake, but for another providence. The third Disputation, as here printed, was written before Mr Blake's Book against me was printed, or in the press (as I have reason to think.) A Copie of this I lent about two years ago to a friend: But by what means I know not, about three quarters of a year ago I received tidings from a pious learned Minister in the West (writing to a friend of his not far from me) that there were such abundance of Copies of that Disputation in those parts, and some were so purposed, that it would be printed if I did not do it my self. I confess I was much offended at the news, because the Disputation was imperfectly written, and on such a subject (as to the later part, which shews what sins may consist with Godliness) that I would have been loath it should have been by them made publike, as knowing how unfit it was for the eyes of the Profane: But when there was no remedy, the best I could do, was to add some cautions, and annex the other Disputations here adjoyned, which were hastily written, that the former might not go alone without that company that seemed necessary. And this is the occasion of this present writing.
For the Matter of it, I have manifested that I hold the common Doctrine of the Church. And many another could I mention as consenting in it, besides those particularly there cited. Mr Wil. Fenner in the second part of Christs Alarm, p. 92, 93. saith [Another inseparable mark of a true Church, is a sincere Profession of the word of God and true Christian religion, either in truth and uprightness of heart, or else so far as man can judge: For though the preaching of the Word come to a place, yet it doth not follow presently that there is a Church of God — but when divers of them embraced the Word either sincerely, or else to see to, as far as Paul and others could judge, then they were a Church: There must be a Congregation of People that do profess the pure Religion, and make it appear (at least to the judgment of man) that they are Godly in Christ Iesus: this is an inseparable Mark of a true Church, as we may see 1 Cor. 14.33.] See further.
Mr Vines in his Treatise of the Sacrament, p. 150, 151. saith, That the Separatists [laid the foundation, viz. That only Visible Saints are fit Communicants, which is true as to the Churches Admission: That real Saints only are worthy Communicants, which is true too, as to the inward Grace or Benefit] —And 151. There is a great difference between Christs real Members and Guests at this Table, and as I may say, the Visible Churches Members or Guests. If he be a visible Professor of Faith, unshipwrakt, of capacity to discern the Lords Body, of Life without Scandal, he is a Guest of the Church. —]
And p. 205. Though I should rest in serious Professsion of Faith and Repentance, which is not pulled down again by a wicked Life, or scandalous Sin,—yet when a man lieth under the charge of our censure for some scandalous sin, the case is otherwise, &c.] Read the rest.
And p. 324, 329. [The Covenant of God with us is, that all that believe in Christ that died, and receive him for their Lord and Saviour, shall have remission of sins, &c. Answerable to this act of God, the Believer accepts of, and submits to this Covenant and the Conditions of it, viz. to believe, and to have God for our God, and thereof makes a solemn profession in this Sacrament, giving up himself to Christ as Lord and Saviour, restipulating and striking hands with him to be his, and so binds himself, and doth as it were seal a Counterpart to God again; and not only so, but comes into a claim of all the riches and legacies of the Will or Covenant, because he hath accepted and here declares his acceptance of the Covenant. The Seal is indeed properly of that which is Gods part of the Covenant to perform and give, and is no more but offered, until we subscribe and set our hands to it, and then its compleat, and the Benefits may be claimed, as the benefit of any conditional promise may be, when the condition is performed. And lest you should stumble at that word, I must let you know, that the Will accepting and submitting to the Conditions, is the performance of the Conditions required (NB.)—
And pag. 249, 250, &c. Though as to admittance (which is the Churches part) to the outward Ordinance, he make Profession (as I do,) sufficient, yet to the question whether the Sacrament be a Converting Ordinance, he concludes that [It is not an Ordinance appointed for Conversion] His Arguments are; 1. Because no effect can be ascribed to this Ordinance which fals not under the signification of it, &c. as Vasquez. 2. This Sacrament by the institution of it appears to praesuppose those that reap the sweet and benefit of it, to be Converts and in grace, namely to have faith in Christ, and to be living members; and if this be presupposed by this Ordinance, then it is not first wrought by it. 3. The Word is the only Instrument of God to beget Faith or work Conversion, &c. And he answereth the Objections of the contrary minded: and to them that argue that the Lords Supper is a Converting Ordinance, because its possible a man may be then converted; he saith, they may as well make Ordination or Marriage Converting Ordinances, because by the words then uttered a man may be converted. He citeth the words of learned Rich. Hooker Eccles. Pol. l. 5. pag. 5…6. [The grace which we have by it doth not begin but continue grace or life; no man therefore receives this Sacrament before Baptism, because no dead thing is capable of nourishment; that which groweth, must of necessity first live.] —
And for further Authority he addeth, [And to this purpose all our Learned Divines have given their suffrage. And the Papists though they differ from us in denying remission of sins in this Sacrament, in favour to their Sacrament of Penance, yet they hold it to be an Ordinance of Nutrition, and so do all their Schoolmen; and so doth the Church of England [The strengthening and refreshing of our souls, &c] I need not number Authors or Churches. It is so plain a case, that I wonder they that have stood up in defence of it, as a converting Ordinance, have not taken notice of it. There is an Army to a man against them; and the antient Christian Churches are so clear in it — So far Mr Vines (& Hooker in him.)
Concerning the Distinction of Forum Dei & Ecclesiae, and its sense, see that judicious Agreement of the Associated Ministers of Cumberlan… and Westmerland, pag. 47. where they take notice of Mr. Blakes questioning it.
Since these Papers were in the Press, I was told by a Reverend Brother, that Mr Blake professeth to hold the Necessity of the Profession of a saving Faith, as well as I; and by one of his special acquaintance, in the Ministry, who heard me express my mind, that Mr Blake's was the same. I durst not omit the mention of this, lest it should be injurious to him: And yet how far the reporters are in the right, and understand his meaning, I am no further able to tell you, but that they are credible persons. For my part, I defended my own Doctrine against the charge which in two Volumes he brought against it. And I supposed he would not write so much of two Volumes against a Doctrine which he judged the same with his own. And I medled only with his books, and not his secret thoughts. Whether I have been guilty of feigning an Adversary, that took himself for none, I am contented to stand to the judgment of any impartial man on earth that will read our books. Surely I found it over each page, that a Faith short of Iustifying entitleth to Baptism: and I never met with any such explication in him, as that by [A faith short of Iustifying,] he meant [A Profession of Iustifying faith.] And sure [Faith] and [Profession] be not all one; nor [Iustifying] and [Short of justifying] all one. Nor do others that read his books understand him any otherwise then I do, so far as I can learn; sure the Ministers that were Authors of the Propositions for Reformation of Parish Congregations, Printed for the Norwich Bookseller, understood him as I do, p. 17. where they say thus; [Obj. 3. But a dogmatical Faith may entitle to Baptism, as Mr Blake, Treat. on Con. speaks, though there be no profession of a justifying faith & repentance. Answ. We cannot think so, seeing the faith required to be professed before Baptism, is such a Faith as hath salvation annexed to it. Mar. 16.16. It is a Faith of the whole heart, Acts 8.38. Repentance is also required to Baptism as well as Faith, Acts 2.38. and the Church in the usual form of Baptism, enjoyned the baptized person not only to profess the doctrine of Faith, but to give up his name to Christ as his servant and souldier, and to fight manfully against the World, the Flesh and the Devil, &c. we need add no more. Mr Blake's mistake lies in this, that the ground of Baptism is either a Dogmatical faith, or a true justifying faith; which because no Minister can certainly know, he must only require a Dogmatical faith. But we conceive neither of them to be the ground of Baptism, but the profession of a true justifying faith, or Acceptance of the Covenant] So far these Brethren.
And whether it be not the Promise of a justifying faith that Mr Blake takes up with, besides his faith short of justifying, read his Books, and censure as you find cause.
But yet if Mr Blake, be really of my mind, I have no mind to perswade the world that he is not, nor reason so to do; but when I know it from himself, I shall heartily rejoyce in the closure. For I am confident it is in love of Truth that both of us do dispute; and therefore if Truth get by it, we have our ends.
For my part, I must still say, that if I took [a Dogmatical faith it self, or any short of justifying] for the Title and necessary qualifications of them that I must admit, I would baptize none, because I cannot know who hath that Dogmatical faith, and who not. And I still find that even wise and pious men are oft as far to seek for the truth of their Assent as of their Consent, and would give a world that they were but certain that they truly Believe the truth of the Gospel. And I am sure that I am as far to seek for assurance of the one as of the other in those that I examine, in order to the baptizing of their Infants.
There is newly come forth a Book of William Morrice Esquire, which seems by the Title page to plead for the sufficiency of this Dogmatical faith. When I saw the Book, made up of so much reading and expressing so much industry and learning, I much rejoyced that England had such a Gentleman; and I look on the Book, as a shaming reprehension of the idleness and ignorance of the multitude of the Gentry, that spend that time in hawking, and hunting, and complementing, which if better spent, might make a blessing, and not a burden to the Land. But out of that learned Volume I am not able to find any clear discovery, what the Author means by a Dogmatical faith. But I conjecture that it is somewhat that must be conjunct with the Profession of a saving faith. For pag. 215. he saith, [because it is not only probable to Charity they may have found faith, but —] And pag. 2…4. [He that receives the Seals of the Covenant, seals back a Counter-part to God, accepts of the Terms, and assents to the Condition, (which as Mr Vines before shews, is justifying faith.) —] And I desire it may be observed what he saith, p. 247. to prove Baptism and the Lords Supper to be administred on the like grounds: And what he saith in p. 248, 249. against Baptizing the children of the Excommunicate, and what he citeth out of Rich. Hooker, Eccl. Pol. l. 3. p. 87. to that end; and that the Childs right is rooted in the immediate parents: And that which he citeth out of Goodwins Mos. & Aar. l. 5. c. 2. p. 223. that [Among the Iews the male-children of those that were but under Niddui were not circumcised.]
And if any think that this learned Gentleman would have Ministers feed the humors of the carnal unruly multitude by giving them the Lords Supper, while they obstinately refuse to be ruled or to live a godly life, let them observe, that it is only Church-members, not living scandalously and still professing the Christian faith, that he pleads for. And no doubt but he will confess, that our Parishioners cannot by us be made Church-members against their wils; & he distinguisheth between the Universal and a Particular Church, and well knows that all the Christian world belongs not to my pastoral charge; and that I am not bound to deliver the Sacraments to all that have a right to them. And therefore if upon just reasons I desire of the whole Parish, to know whether they own their membership in that particular Church or not, and take me for their Pastor, and consent to the duty of members; and some deny it, and others will give me no answer by word or writing, no not after I have waited a year or two; and I told them, that I must take their silence for a denial; but they will continue silently to hear, and will not once say they own the relation, nor will submit to the unquestionable acts of Discipline; I am confident that it is not in the thoughts of this learned Gentleman, that I must needs take these persons for part of my charge, that will not tell me, they take themselves for such, or take me for their Pastor; no more then he will think himself bound to take a woman for his wife, and estate her in his Lands, and perform conjugal offices to her, that will not once say, She consenteth that he shall be her husband. And this is the case of most of our people: The most Godly Ministers about us that gather not new Churches, but (on sufficient reasons and joint agreement) do only call the whole Parish to know whether they own their membership, and them for their Pastors, do find almost none but a few Godly that will own it, for fear of being troubled by Discipline. If all the Parish therefore be our Church, it must be against their wils.
And if any think that several passages in that Learned Volumn do make against the power, and consequently the labor of the Ministry and the Edification of the Church, I propound to their consideration, 1. That all the applicatory passages of the Discourse must be expounded as they relate to that controversie which occasioned them, which must be understood by the help of former writings. 2. Its not unusual with wise men in length and heat of Disputation, to make the face of Truth it self to seem sometimes to look awry in the application. 3. And other passages in the same Book may help you to a fair exposition of the offensive. As, e.g. p. 85. he saith, [Were a Pastor so familiarly conversant with his flock as he ought to be, and is some think implyed not only in Paul's preaching from house to house, but also by those alike used idioms, [the Church in, or among you, and you in the Church,] or did not deem, the feeding of the Lambs by Catechizing to be beneath his magistery and greatness, he would need no other marks or signs to know his sheep by, then such as he might take from common conversation] And you need not question but this Learned Author would reckon them among the scandalous, that would not speak with a Minister if he desire it, but get away when they know he will come to their house, yea, or will not come to him, considering he is made the Ruler over them in order to their spiritual good, and they commanded to obey him, Heb. 13.17. especially when a Ministers weakness, or the multitude of his Parishioners and business will not permit him to seek after them. I may conclude therefore that for all the word [Dogmatical faith] in the Title page, this Gentleman is not like to be my Adversary.
To conclude, the Jesuits themselves do witness that the Doctrin which I have in this Book maintained, is the ordinary Protestant Doctrine, while they concurr in opposing part of it, under that title without our disowning it, and tell the Iansenians, that their Doctrine, by which they make the Church to consist only of those that have charity and true Grace, is the doctrine of the Protestants; as Petavius de Lege & Gratia passim; & p. 28. [Au…enim unà cum charitate ac justitiâ necessario fidem amittebant, quicunque lethale aliquod crimen incurrerant, dut si fides in illis haerebat adhuc, ea minimè suffi…iebat, ut in Ecclesiae parte aliqua numerarentur. Horum utrùm díxerint, nihil ad haeresim & Catholicae fidei …abem interest: Nam utrumque pro haeretico damnatum, & inter caetera Lutheri Calvini que , & ante hos Wiclefi nefaria dogmata, jampridem Ecclesiasticâ censurâ notatum est.] Vid. & p. 118. de Gratia initiali. But its in regard of the Catholick Church as invisible, and in the properest acception, that we own this to be our Doctrine.
As to the rest of Mr Blake's Book, and also Dr Owen's & Mr Roberts. I have said as much as I now intend in the Conclusion of these Disputations.
If any Papists or other Adversaries shall conclude that we are not of the true Church or Religion, because we thus differ, and are of so many minds; they may as well prove a man to be no member of an Hospital, or no Patient to a Physitian, because he is not in perfect health; or none of the Scholars of such a Master, because he knows not as much as his Teacher, or as those of the highest form: Or that Paul and Barnabas were not both of the true Church, because they fell out even to a parting asunder: Or that Peter & Paul were not both of the true Religion, because one of them was to be blamed, and the other withstood him to the face, because he walked not uprightly, and according to the truth of the Gospel, (an high charge, Gal. 1.11, 12, 13, 14.) yea, they may as well conclude that no man is of the Church while he liveth on earth, because while we are here, we know but in part, and see but darkly or enigmatically as in a glass, 1 Cor. 13.9, 11, 12. and because we account not our selves perfect, or to have attained, but follow after, and reach forth to the things which are before us, and press toward the mark; and where any is otherwise minded, we wait till God reveal this to us, Phil. 3.12, 13, 14, 15. Or as if they would make us believe, that there are not more differences among the Papists then with us. But of these things I purposely speak in some Disputations against Popery, which with this are in the Press.
And lastly, for those that will convert the truths which I here maintain, into the nourishment of divisions, (when their nature is to heal) either making men Notoriously ungodly, that are not, and so rejecting them and their Children, or withdrawing into separated Churches, because such are Baptized or admitted to Communion, of whose qualifications they are unsatisfied, their guilt is upon themselves. The doctrine is not made guilty by their abuse: As the ignorant and unlearned have still wrested the Scripture to their own destruction, so have the self-conceited and erroneous always misused the Truth it self to the disturbance of the Church. Its matter of double Lamentation, that yet there should be such Divisions, and Parties, and Distances; when Bp Hall's Peace-maker, and Mr Burrough's Irenicum have been extant so long. Were there but those two Books on that Subject extant in England, they will heal, or inexcusably condemn our distances. And indeed they are Volumns of accusation against us, & proclaim the shame (let me speak what must be spoken) even of the Godly, yea, of the most of the Godly Ministers of these Nations, that have yet done no more in this healing work. And I intreat all those Ministers & People (that have time, and any regard to my advice) that they would diligently read over and over again those two books, though they cast by twenty such as this for it. And for those that will censure the following disputations, as being not levelled to the in…erest of their several Parties, I shall be no further solicitous to remove their offence. And of the foresaid abusers of these reforming, reconciling verities, I now only crave the sober perusal & conscionable Practice of Mr Burrough's 2d, 3d, 4th and 5th Propotion in in his Irenic. Ch. 23 p 163. Had there been but that one healing Leaf or Page in England, our wounds would be our shame, as truly as they are our hurt and danger.