Right to Sacraments — Richard Baxter

Right to Sacraments · Richard Baxter

And that this is the nature of saving faith, is manifest: For 1. It is not a meer act of the Intellect. Though Assent be the Initial Act (from which it hath oft its name) yet it is not the whole, nor the perfecting Act: Our Divines most commonly consent (except Camero and some few more) that faith is in the Will as well as the Understanding: And its first Act in the Will must needs be velle Christum oblatum or a consent to the Gospel-offer of God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost: or an Acceptance of the Redeeming Trinity in the Relation as they are offered to to be ours in the Gospel: After which followeth Affiance, as Assent precedes it. Our Assembly of Divines in their Catechisms say, That Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving Grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the Gospel. Or, as elswhere [to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the Gospel] And the Wills receiving is by Accepting or Consenting. Dr. Preston hath at large shewed in many of his writings (as I have elswhere shewed) that Faith and Heart-covenanting with Christ is all one. The Scripture calleth Saving faith A receiving Christ Jesus the Lord, John 1.12. Col. 2.5, 6 This therefore with almost all Protestant Writers is past controversie. But if any will yet be stiff in it, that Faith is only in the Intellect, (upon that common poor reason, that one Grace cannot be in two faculties) it may suffice to them, that I prove the Inseparability of saving faith and sincere Heart-covenanting, and so of the profession of each, though I had not proved the Identity. And these same men do most earnestly plead for the Inseparability themselves, maintaining at large, that Assent (which only they call Faith) if true, is Inseparable from true consent, which is the Heart-covenanting. Of which you may see Dr. Downame in his Treatise of Justification, and in his Appendix against Mr. Pemble, at large.

But here we are quite off with the Papists; for they stifly maintain, that Faith is only the Understandings Assent; only the Schoolmen and others of them confess, that it is a willing Assent: but it is one thing to will the Assent, and another thing to will or Accept the Good that is contained in the promise which we Assent to. This last is the thing in Question: And they tell us, that this is not Faith, but Love. To which Maccovius and Chamier answer them, that Faith and Love to Christ are all one; though Faith and Love to a distinct object, be not so.

2. Hereupon we proceed to a further difference, which is, that the Papists say, that Faith may be separated from Love; that Faith without Love doth not Justifie; but only that Faith which is informed by Love. How far this supposed great disagreement is meerly Verball, or Reall, I leave to the judicious Reader to judge, when he hath considered, that what we call Faith simply, they call Fides formata Charitate: That the Act of Faith which is in the Will, the Papists call by the name of Love, and not of Faith, yet both agree de re ipsa, that this is the thing which is necessary to Justification; and we confess as well as they, that meer Assent (of some sort) is separable from Love. But then the mischief is, that the Papists by false wording or naming these Graces, are carried to the misinterpreting of many Scriptures, if not to many erroneous Doctrines also. And when they read of Faith simply, they commonly take it for meer Assent. And so they are led into error in the present controversie. For when they find that he that Believeth must be Baptized; they conclude presently with Bellarmine, that sides, non charitas facit Christianum: he that assenteth is a Believer, & therefore may be baptized. But our Divines have so frequently and so voluminously confuted this conceit, and proved against them that faith is in the Will as well as the understanding, and that [to Believe in] signifieth to Accept, or rest upon, or have Affiance in, and that Faith and Love are inseparable, (yea true and through Assent,) that I shall not needlesly stand to do again a work so oft and fully done. And themselves confess, that when Faith is mentioned as Justifying, it includeth the act of the Will, (which they call Charity:) And sure we have oft proved against them, that this is the faith that is meant in Gods Covenant, and in our Baptismal Profession and Covenant with him, and in the Creed.

In a word, that Faith which is meant by God in the Covenant offered, must be meant by us in our profession of Accepting this offer. But it is a true saving Faith, which hath a promise of Remission, which is meant by God in the Covenant offered; therefore this must be meant by us, &c. The Major is clear; because else we do but Equivocate with God, and we do not Accept the same thing that he offereth. The Minor is clear: in that the Covenant of Grace is but one, and that one Covenant offereth Christ and Life to all that will accept him: so that the Acceptance puts us into a participation of Christ and Life, The Covenant offereth pardon of sin to all that Believe or Receive Christ; therefore it is a saving faith that it means, because it annexeth saving special Benefits.

To these I add another Argument: which is this:

The hearty Acceptance of the Gift, is the first and principal part of our Heart-covenanting with God: The hearty Acceptance of that same Gift, is saving faith; therefore the first and principal part of our Heart-covenanting with God, is the same thing as saving Faith. The like I say of the Professions of each. Or thus: Our Heart-covenanting is the principal condition of the Promise (or Gods part of the Covenant:) Our saving Faith is the principal condition of the Promise; Therefore our Heart-covenanting and our saving faith are the same. The Major I prove by the Medium of the fore-going Argument. Our hearty Acceptance of the Gift, is the Principal condition of the Promise. But this hearty Acceptance of the Gift, is the first and principal part of our Heart-covenanting: therefore our Heart-covenanting is the principal condition of the Promise (or the first and chief part of that covenating at least). The Major is proved, 1. In that it is a free Gift: And our Divines, against the Doctrine of Justification by Works, or Merit, have fully proved, that its so free, that Acceptance is the condition of our Interest. 2. And the free Offers of the Gospel fully confirm it, Isa. 55 1, 2.3. Rev. 22.17. &c. The main point that is necessary for me to insist on, is the proof of the Minor, which yet is so plain from what is said, and the very nature of the Gospel offer, that one would think it should need no more to be said to it: But that I perceive some few do misapprehend the nature of our covenanting with God, as if it were only an Agreement or Covenant to do somewhat for the future, that God may do somewhat for us for the future: And this gross mistake (gross indeed, in the very point of the Gospel promise, which is our only tenure of our Title to Life), doth animate abundance of dark confused quarrelsom contradictions and oppositions, which I have had on this point. It is a matter of very sad consideration, that any Preacher of the Gospel had need to be perswaded, that the first and great part of the Covenant of Grace offered by God, and accepted by us, doth consist in present Giving and Receiving, not only in mutual Promises for hereafter. The Gospel is a most free Deed of Gift: some of its benefits it actually giveth, on condition of meer Acceptance to be presently possest; and some of them, on condition too, but in a waiting obediential way, to be hereafter possest. In respect to the presently given benefi…s, the Gospel is a Deed of Gift presently entitling us to them, and our present acceptance is the condition. But in regard of the future Benefits, the Gospel is also a Deed of Gift, but giveth not present Title, or at least not so full, and therefore requireth future conditions, as it gives future Benefits. At the present in the New Covenant, God giveth himself to be our God, Christ to be our Saviour, Head and Husband, the Holy Ghost to be our Sanctifier; and also the present actual pardon of our sins; the Justification of our Persons; the Adoption of Sons; the indwelling Spirit; a Right to a beneficial use of the Creature; and a Right to the Inheritance of Everlasting life, so far, that if we should die that hour, we should be saved. All these God offered us at the present on condition of our Accptance, or consent. This consent is our Heart-covenanting; so that this first and great part of the Covenant consisteth but in the present Giving and taking of all these Benefits: which in a word the Apostle expresseth 1 John 5.11, 12, by the words [Christ and eternal Life] God hath given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son: He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life]. The remaining part of the Benefits are our future helps of Grace, Pardons, Protections, final Absolution at Judgement, and eternal Glory. All these we have a right to at our first Justification, but it is a right to be continued only on some future conditions, that is, on the condition of our continuance in the Faith which we begun, and of our renewed faith and Repentance, and sincere Gospel-Obedience, which is to be performed in a receiving way. Now its true, that as to these future conditions, we do not actually perform them in our covenating, but promise them: as God doth not then actually give us the very Blessings now mentioned, but promise them. But as to all the first expressed great Benefits, as God did before our Consents but promise and offer them, but in our covenanting or consent doth actually give them; so we do by our covenanting in heart (which is nothing but our consenting or accepting) perform the conditions of Gods promise; and thus our very covenanting with God is the same thing as our fulfiling the conditions of the Covenant, that is, of Gods conditional Deed of Gift, which before gave us Christ and Life if we would accept them, and now giveth them actually upon our acceptance. And I should hope that few Protestants think that our actual Justification and Adoption, our Interest in God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost, are suspended upon any future condition, which in our covenanting with God we must promise to perform. I think I have made it plain now that our Heart covenanting with God is principally our present consent that Christ and Life shall be ours; God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost ours; and that this is nothing else but Justifying faith; and therefore that they are all one; and therefore the Profession of each of them is all one: and so that where one is required, the other is so, being indeed not another.

Argum. 5. We must not baptize any without the profession of that faith and Repentance which are made the condition of Remission of sins. But only the faith called justifying or saving, and the concomitant true Repentance, are made the condition of Remission of sins: therefore we must baptize none without the profession of that justifying faith, &c.

The Minor needeth no proof. And the Major I prove thus. If we must not baptize any but intentionally for present Remission of sin, then must we not baptize any without a profession of that faith and Repentance which is the condition of Remission. But the former is true: therefore so is the later.

The consequence is past all doubt: for else we should Imagine that men may have present Actual pardon without that Faith and Repentance which are the condition of it; which subverteth much of the Gospel. The Antecedent I prove thus; If God hath Instituted no Baptism but what is Intentionally for the present Remission of sin, then we must not baptize any but Intentionally for the present Remission of sin: But the former is true; therefore so is the later. I say [intentionally] in contradistinction from [Eventually, or certainly and Infallibly attaining that end.] Where further note, That I speak not of Gods absolute Decrees, as if his Intention in that sense could be frustrate; but of his ends as Legislator, speaking of him after the manner of men. but principally of the Instituted ends of his Ordinances; that is, the Ends which he requireth the Minister and people to use them for; and so it is Our Intention principally that I mention. As the Gospel it self is said to be Intentionally to save men; and though it condemn most, that is besides the first Intention, and but by Accident. And though this be principally to be spoken of the prescribed, imposed Intentions of their Conversion and Salvation; yet Christ is pleased in the Word to ascribe such Intentions to himself as attain not their ends: as professing that he came not into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved: that is, To condemn them is not his direct principal Intent, but only on supposition of their willfull final rejecting of him: And this he speakes partly in the habit of a Rector or Promiser, and partly as man, or after the manner of men: And of the intention imposed on us, there is no doubt.

Now I shall prove the Antecedent (for the consequence is past doubt) And first we are confirmed in this truth, because the Opponent (whom it concerneth) hath not proved any other Baptism instituted by God, but what is for present Remission of sins. If they can shew us one Text of Scripture that speaketh of any other, we shall give up all the Cause; but yet they have not done it that I know of. In the mean time we shall prove the contrary. God hath instituted but One Baptism: that one Baptism is for the present Remission of sins; therefore God hath instituted no Baptism but what is for present Remission. The Major is proved from Eph. 4.5. There is one Baptism. In the Minor we take the words [for Remission] not to speak of somewhat accidental, or to be intended only by the Administrator, uncertainly, or but sometime. And I prove it from Scripture, Acts 2.38. Repent and be Baptized every one of you in in the name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of sins, and ye shall Receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost.] As Remission is here made the end of Baptism, so it is present Remission: For. 1. It is such as is the consequent of the Repentance which Peter exhorteth them to; but that was present Remission. 2. It was to precede the giving of the Holy Ghost, in the sense there mentioned; therefore it was present Remission. The great Reasons that are brought to the contrary I shall answer afterwards, and more fully then prove the vanity and foul consequents of their opinion, that make a future Remission to be the intended end of our Administration of Baptism: and therefore I must desire the Reader to suspend his expectations of my further Reasons à Natura rei, till their due place. Beza in loc. saith [in nomen Christi] id est, dans Christo nomen, cujus mortis, sepulturae ac resurrectionis simus in Baptismo participes, cum peccatorum Remissione. Nec enim hoc declarat formulam Baptismi, sed finem & scopum:] So Deodate, [In the name] viz. Not only for a Mark of our Profession of the Gospel, but also to participate of his spiritual vertue in the washing away of your sins, with which he accompanieth and ratifyeth the external Ceremony in those who are his:] Bullinger in loc. saith, [Baptizari in nomine Domini Jesu Christi, est Baptismatis signo testari se Christo credere ad Remissionem peccatorum. 1. Mark, it is not only an engagement to Believe hereafter, but the Profession of a present Faith. 2. And that not a common faith, but that which hath Remission of sin. 3. And this was not an accidental separable use of Baptism: but he makes this the very exposition of Baptizari in nomine Jesu Christi. And next addeth, [Vel est in Baptismo per Christum recipi in gratiam.] Mark then, that even Baptism into the name of Christ it self doth signifie that we are received into Gods favor by Christ: And thus he expoundeth the Covenant in the next words: [Est enim Baptismus pactum seu foedus gratiae, quod init inter baptizandum nobiscum Christus.] And that it is a Professing sign of our true Repentance, he shews before [Et rectissimè conjungitur Poenitentia & Baptismus, quia Baptismus Poenitentiae signum est:]

Marlorate in loc. goes further, and shews that Remission doth in order go before Baptism, and multitudes of our Divines say the like, as may be seen in the abundant citations of them by Mr. Gataker against Doctor Ward and Bishop Davenant [Tametsi in contexu verborum Baptismus Remissionem hìc praecedit, ordine tamen sequitur: quia nihil aliud est (Mark nihil aliud) quàm bonorum quae per Christum consequimur obsignatio, ut in conscientiis nostris data sint.] The words are Calvins in loc. owned by Marlorate.

The same Cal. in loc. to shew that Remission of sin goeth before baptism, addeth Caeterùm longa expositione non indiget, quòd baptizari jubet in remissionem …eccatorum: Tametsi enim semel homines sibi reconciliav…t Deus in Christo, non imputando illis peccata, 2 Cor. 5 19. & nunc hujus reconciliationis fidē cordibus nostris per spiritū suum imprimit; quia tamen Baptismus sigillū est, quo hoc benefic…ū nobis confirmat, adeo que arrka & pignus adoptionis nost…ae, meritò dari nobis in remissionem peccatorum dicitur. Nam quia fide percipimus Christi dona, fidei autem confirmandae & augendae Baptismus adminiculum est, illi tanqua inferiori medio remissio pecc…t…ū, quae fidei est effectus, annectitur.] I hope I need not stand to shew what Calvin here supposeth the use of Christs Baptism to be or what faith it presupposeth. And that you may see what he takes to enter the very Definition of Baptism he addeth, [Porrò non est sumenda ex hoc loco Definitio Baptismi, quia ejus partem duntaxat Petrus attingit. Per Baptismum (ut Paulus docet) crucifigitur vetus homo noster, ut in vitae novitatem resurgamus, Rom 6.4, 8. Item induimus Christum ipsum, Gal. 3.27. 1 Cor. 12. & passim docet Scriptura esse Poenitentiae quoque symbolum.] Indeed Calvin doth often fall upon the Papists, that make baptism to have no force against any sin but those before Baptism: But 1. He makes actual Baptism ever to be first for washing away our past & present sin & not then to pardon future sin, but to put the person into an estate wherein he hath a remedie for future sin, at hand, and certain: 2. And he intendeth, that Baptism (as reviewed by faith) afterward may be usefull to confirm our Belief of Forgiveness of renewed sin: which made Bellarmine fall upon him and other Protestants, as holding that the very remembrance of Baptism is effectual for pardon of sin.

Also, on the same 38. verse Calvin takes special notice of the order of Peters words, and gives it us as the summ of Christianity [Primò hortatus fuerit Judaeos ad poenitentiam: Deinde eroxerit eos veniae fiducia: nam peccatorum remissionem illis remisit. 3. Quia non reconciliamur Deo, nisi intercedente Christi morte, nec aliter quàm ejus sanguine peccata nostra expiantur & delentur, ideò neminatim Petrus ad ipsum nos revocat. Quarto loco, baptismum ponit tanquam figillum quo gratiae promissio confirmatur. Quare in his paucis verbis totam ferè habemus Christianismi summam. Nempe, ut homo sibi renuncians & mundo, totum se Deo addicat: Deinde ut gratuita peccatorum remissione à reatu mortis liberetur, adeó que adoptetur inter filios Dei.

Piscator in loc. saith, [foreign] Id est in Testimonium Remissionis peccatorum: ut habentes scilicét Testimonium Divinum quòd Deus vobis remiserit peccata vestra propter Jesum Christum in quē creditis: Non autem ad consequendam Remissionē peccatorum per hoc mediū sive instrumentū. [Baptismus est medium sen instrumentū quo Spiritus sanctus utitur, ad fidem confimandū.] Vid. ultr.

The next Text we shall cite is Act. 22.16: [Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.] Though the Papists vainly would hence gather, that Baptism doth wash away sin ex opere operato; yet we may well gather, 1. That it washeth it away by Confirmation and Obsignation. 2. And this is the instituted use of Baptism, and not to signifie what may or will be done hereafter. Calvin on this Text saith, [non dubium est, quin fideliter rudimentis Pietatis Paulum imbuerit Ananias: neque enim verae fidei expertem baptizasset.] After he shews, that it was a confirmation of the pardon that Paul had before.

Joh. 3.5 Exce…t a man be born of water and of the spirit, he shal not enter into the kingdom of God. Though we are agreed against the Papists, that Christ intendeth not here to place the same necessity in Baptism, as there is in or of the New birth by the spirit; yet it is by most acknowledged, that Christ doth here speak of the New Birth, as signified by Baptism; and so hath respect to Baptism as the ordinary confirming sign. And so the text fully sheweth us, that Baptism is instituted to be the sign of our present Regeneration; Or else it could not be said, that we must be born [of water and the spirit.] And that Remission of sin is here included, I have said somewhat to prove in a Treat. against infidelity, Part. 4. initio. Calvin saith, most are of Chrysostoms mind, who took it to be meant of Baptism. (And so did the generality of antient Expositors) And though himself and some more think otherwise; yet as long as they take it to be a Metonymical expression, the sign being put for the thing Signified, it doth as well acquant us with the use of Baptism, as if it were a proper speech.

Bullinger in loc. saith [H…nc Christi sententiam omnes penè de Baptismo interpretantur.] Beza believeth, that the Text speaks of Baptism, either Christs, or some other, but rather Christs. Piscator on the text hath these words. [Nam ipsa Baptismi perceptione salutē consequimur: quū non sit institutus nisi ad Remissionem peccatorum sanguine Christi partam, itemque Regenerationem spiritus testandam. — Baptismus additur fidei, non quòd parem rationem ac vim hab…at, sed quòd ad fidem testandam & confirmandam adhibeatur. Ita hìc Baptismus additur spiritui, quod forès testetur id quod spiritus intus peragit] though he rather interpret the Text as Calvin.

I have shewed before from Mar. 1.4. and other places, that Johns Baptism was for Remission of sins; that is, (saith Gataker) to seal us the pardon which we have received. And if the very Scripture description of it was [The Baptism of Repentance for Remission of sins] then it was not an accidental or separable use, as to the Intention which the Administrator and Receiver are bound to. And justly doth Beza in Mat. 1.4. fall upon Erasmus sharply, for saying [foreign. [In Praepositio Praeparationem significat non effectum; because Repentance and Remission (saith Beza) cannot be separated; so that he took it not to be a common preparatory Repentance, or Baptism.

Piscator on Mar. 1.4. saith, its called the Baptism of Repentance for Remission of sin, because John preached Remission of sin to the penitent and believers; praecipiebatque ut in hujus rei testimonium atque professionem baptizarentur. And that its called foreign, id est, Qui resipiscentiae testificandae atque profitendae adhibebatur. Neque enim baptizabat nisi eos qui confessione pecatorum edita, resipiscentiam suam testatam reddebant:] Caeterum nomine Resipiscentiae per Synecdochë membri simul intelligenda est fides in Christum;] And he expounds the words [foreign] thus, Id est, praed cabat baptisma resipiscentiae quod ad Remissionem peccatorum pertinet, seu destinatum est, ut Act. 2.38. sed hoc est rectè intelligendū: viz ad Remissionem peccatorū testificandam sive obsignandam: non autem ad illam consequendam hoc opere. [And on Mal. 3.11. Observe he shews that Christs Baptism and Johns are the same, in that both have the same end and use, viz. Obsignatio Remissionis peccatorum & Resipiscentiae, that is, as already extant, as his Judgement is oft delivered. As in his Schol. on ver. 11. he expresly saith [In resipiscenti…m, id est, in testimonium Resipiscentiae, ut nimirum susceptione baptismi testatum faciatis vos resipuisse, & indies magis ac magis resipiscere velle: sed simul hìc intelligendum, Joannem baptizasse quoque in remissionem peccatorum, hoc est, in remissionem peccatorum, ut nimirum nomine Dei testatum faceret resipiscentibus & in Christum credentibus peccata ipsis remissa esse propter Christum agnum Dei.—]

And I pray mark his observation on Mat. 3.6, 8, 10. concluding our present Question: [Baptismus nulli adulto conferendus est, nisi prius ediderit confessionem peccatorū & fidei in Christū, ac praeterea promissionem sanctae vitae;] which he proves. And as he shews that it is Saving Faith and Repentance that he means, which hath the promise of remission; so the promise of a holy Life cannot be sincerely made by any till he have a Regenerate heart. See Doctor Hammond on Mark 1.4.

Calvin on Mat. 3.6. saith, ergò ut se ritè ad Baptismum offerant homines, peccatorum [Confessio ab illis requiritur; alioqui enim quàm inane esset ludicrum tota actio!] If I had charged the guilty so, of making the whole work of Baptism ludicrous, they would have been highly offended: Calvin shews his judgement, that it is a true special Repentance which he would require this Confession to manifest: And he addeth, [Notandum est de adultis hic verba fieri, quos scimus non promiscuè in Ecclesiam esse admittendos, nec Baptismo initiandos esse in corpus Christi nisi examine prius habito,] viz. about the said Repentance and Faith.

Paraeus on Mat. 3.5. shews that the order was that Confession as a testimony of true Repentance go first, and then Baptism for Remission of sins [confessio post ponitur; sed foreign constructionis — Confesii baptizabantur: pro, Cum confessi essent peccata, baptismum accipiebant Sacramentum remissionis peccatorum. Non prius baptizabantur, postea confitebantur — Auditores igitur primò in testimonium Resip…scentiae confitebantur sua peccata, deinde baptizabātur: tertiò, fide Baptismi fructum suscipiebant Remissionē peccatorum. Docet hic locus varia. 1. Quod Baptismus sit sacramentū Remissionis peccatorum, ex parte Dei; spondet enim Deus ceu jurejurando, baptizatis remissionem gratuitam peccatorum propter Christum. 2. Quod sit etiam sacramentum Resipiscentiae, ex parte nostra. Restipulamur enim Deo fidem & poenitentiam pro tanto beneficio. (That is, both profess it at present, and engage to continue in it; answering the interrogation Credis? with a Credo, and not only a Credam.) 3. Ad Sacramenta non esse admittendos Impoenitentes; (He speaks of the Repentance which had the promise of Remission) — Hoc enim damus (Anabaptistis) in Ecclesiam suscipiendos & baptizandos non esse, nisi praevia confessione Fidei & Poenitentiae (by the adult:) quem morem & vetus servavit Ecclesia & nostrae hodie observant, si vel Judaeus vel Turca adultus baptismo sit ini…i indus.

And on verse 7. he saith (which will be harsh to our Opponents) Ex concione ipsa datur intelligi, multos illerum simulata poenitentia etiam baptismū petivisse: Horum hypocrisin cùm non ignoraret, non passus eos latere in turba, nec ad baptismum indignos admisit sed acri objurgatione, hortatione, & comminatione ad seriam resipiscentiam extimulat & ad baptismum praeparat. (where he goeth three steps beyond our Opposers; who 1. will not have us require as necessary so much as a shew of this Repentance. 2. Much less the sincerity of it; 3. nor to deny them Baptism as unworthy till they are prepared.) After he shews, that Hypocrits will creep in among the good: partly such as we cannot discern, and those are to be left to the judgement of God; partim manifesti, quos Pastores admittere non debent sine examine, nè Sacramenta prost…tuant, sibi & Ecclesiae reatum attrahant, (How little do our confident opposers fear this!) — Facite fructus dignos Poenitentiae. Pro, Cavete, mihi, vel Deo hypocrisi illudere, sed videte ut veram poenitentiam agatis, ab erroribus & peccatis vestris, & si… baptismum Novae Ecclesiae sacramentum suscipiatis. Fructus poenitentiae vocat, ut palam erroribus, sectis & vitiis suis renuncient, & emendatione vitae se novos homines deinceps testentur. Non enim satis est foris poenitētiā simulare, quod etiā hypocritae solent, &c. [And p. 56. against Maldonate, he proveth the Baptism of Christ and John all one; and when Maldonate saith that John baptized [in poenitentium baptismus praecedebat, & poenitentia sequebatur] (confessing, that in Christs Baptism Repentance precedes,) he answereth, [that it is false; [Non] is put for [Nam] in that exceeding false printed Cople.Nam etiam in Joannis baptismo praecedebat poenitentia, sequebatur baptismus.]

If then it be certain that Johns Baptism was for present Remission of sins, even the obsignation of a Remission already conferred by the promise, it will be at least as evident that Christs Baptism is so to, and accordingly to be administred.

Hence it is, that the Faith which the Apostles before they baptized men did perswade them to, was still a Justifying Faith, (as Act. 13.38, 39. & passim) as that which they were to annex the Seal of Baptism to, (or to Gods promise on mens believing.)

2 Pet. 1.9 It is said of the barren ungodly Professor, [that he hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins;] where I take it for a clear case that it is the Baptismal Washing which the Apostle there intendeth, wherein all profess to put off the Old Man, and to be washed from their former filthiness. For I suppose we shall be loth to yield that it was an actual cleansing, either of Remission or Mortification, which the Apostle meaneth, left we grant that men may fall from such a state: And therefore it must be a Sacramental washing or Cleansing, wherein the matter was appearingly and sacramentally transacted. From whence it is plain, that the Apostle took it for granted, that as all the Baptized were visibly Church-Members, so were they all visibly washed from their old sins; which sheweth both what was their own Profession, and what was the stated end and use of the Ordinance. The Apostle saith not that [he hath forgotten that he promised or engaged to be purged from his old sins,] but that [he was purged] from them. Pareus in loc. saith, [A veteribus peccatis purgatum, h. e. se esse baptizatum: seu se accepisse in Baptismo purgationis signaculum. Omnes enim baptizati debent purgari à peccatis, sicut dicuntur induere Christum, Gal. 3. mori cum Christo, Rom. 6. sensus est: Qui se volutant in sceleribus, non recordantur se baptizatos esse: Abnegant ergo Baptismum suum.] 1 Cor. 6 11. The Apostle saith of the visible Church of Corinth, [such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, &c.] where it is evident, that all the visible members of the Church are visibly washed, sanctified, justified, (of which Text I shall speak more anon.) And I thik it is clear, that by Washing here he hath some respect to their Baptism.

I shall not stand now to add any more texts, because we shall have occasion anon to do it; but may hence conclude, that till one text of Scripture be produced from whence it may be proved, that Christ did institute such a thing as Baptism, which was not for the present signal Remission of sin, we must take the contrary for granted, because we have so many texts that tell us that his Baptism was for Remission of sin.

I shall only here add, that the very sign it self which is the washing of the body by water, doth plainly shew that the washing of the soul by the blood of Christ, is the thing signified; and the present actual use of the sign is to signifie the presence and actuality of the thing signified. So that I conclude, that there is no Baptism to be administred without a Profession of saving faith and Repentance fore-going, because there is no Baptism that ever Christ appointed but what is for the obsignation of Remission of sin which is the consequent.

Mr. Blake page 171. reciteth some words of mine containing this Argument, thus: that faith to which the promise of Remission and justification is made, must also be sealed to: Or that faith which is the condition of the promise, is the condition in foro Dei of the Title to the seal: But it is only solid true faith that is the condition of the promise of Remission: therefore it is that which gives Right in foro Dei to the seal] Who would think now but Mr. Blake had given some substantial answer to this and other Arguments, when himself and some others are so confident of the sufficiency of them? His answer is this [To this I have answered, faith is not sealed to but Remis…ion of sins or salvation upon condition of faith; and when I come to speake of the sealing of Sacraments, I shall God willing make this more evident, that the sacrament, quâ seal, immediately respects our priviledges not duties] Reply. 1. Is here one word of answer to any real part of the Argument? Is not this answer as little to the matter as if he had talk't of another subject. I think it my Duty to say that Ministers of the Gospel do but proclaim to the Church the matter of our common lamentation, and the enemies joy, when some confidently publish such kind of Disputations, and others are satisfied with them. And I must say, if all were such, they should never more be angred with one word of mine, in opposition to their assertions, though they would maintain that the Crow is white.

2. To that useless touch that he hath on a word (whose following explication might have spared him his labour) I may say that our Divines have ordinarily maintained hitherto that there is a mutual covenanting between God and us (and no man more then Mr. Blake) and that in the Sacrament there is a mutual sealing; the receiving being our seal, as the Act is Gods.

Arg 6. If Baptism be instituted to be a seal of the Righteousness of that faith which we have being yet unbaptized, then must we Baptize none that profess not a justifying faith (and their seed) But the Antecedent is true; therefore so is the consequent.

The reason of the consequence is evident in that we must use Baptism only according to its nature, and to its instituted ends.

The Antecedent is proved thus: Circumcision was instituted to be a seal of the righteousness of that faith which they had being yet uncircumcised: therefore Baptism is instituted to be a seal of the righteousness of that faith which we have yet unbaptized; the consequence will not be denyed by them whom we now deal with: Because they confess that Baptism succeedeth Circumcision. The Antecedent is evident in Rom. 4.11. It being so expresly said of Abraham, to whom circumcision was first given. I cannot imagine what they will say, unless it be by recourse to the Anabaptists shift, to say, that Circumcision was instituted to this end indeed, to Abraham himself, and others that were sincere, but not to all that had right to it. But God here tels us, the established use and end of his Ordinance; and in such Relations, the end is inseparable. And as God hath not made many sorts of Baptisms or Circumcisions, so neither many neerer inconsistent ends, (or separable.) And we are likest to know the true end of the institution, where the institution and first example are reported to us.

Calvin in loc saith [Hic porrò habemus insignem locum de commum sacramentorum usu: sunt enim (teste Paulo) sigilla, quibus & Dei promissiones cordibus nostris quodammodo imprimuntur, & sancitur gratiae certitudo, — Quare maneat hoc fixum, sacra symbola esse …l est monia quibus gratiam suam Deus cordibus nostris —obsignat. Gratuita Reconciliatio in Deo in signo illo inclusa fuit — Duae deniq…e ut Baptismi hodie sunt, ità olim Circumcisionis erant partes; nempe tam vitae novitatem quàm peccatorum Remissionem testari:] But he shews next, that all the circumcised had not Justice; (that is actual faith and sanctity) first giving instance in Isaac an Infant.

Saith Aritius in loc. Hanc Justitiam obsignavit hoc est, illū certum reddidit de faedere inito & acceptatione gratuita.

Saith Piscator in loc. Sicut olim Circumcisio signum fuit federis gratiae, & sigillum quo credentibus obsignata fuit Justitia fidei, hoc est quo illi certiores sunt redditi, sibi rem…ss… esse peccata prepter futuram satisfactionem Christi, ac proinde se habere Deū prepitū ac saventeē; it… …ctera quo que sacramēta, &c. similiter & finis seu scopus omnium sacramentorum unus idemque est, viz. Obsignatio justitiae Fidei, quae vulgo dicitur fidei confirmatio.]

Paraeus in loc. saith, [Ita signum fuit dantis & accipientis respectu, &c.] Et [justitia fid…i est Remissio peccatorum fide accepta propter redemptionem Christi] Et [sic sacramenta non sunt instituta justificandis, sed justificatis, h. e. non infidelibus, sed conversis. Non igitur nisi conversione & fide sumi debent; secus sigilla justitiae esse cessant. Quid enim non hathentibus fidem & justitiam obsignarem?] Yet following Calvin, he next sheweth, that sometime Righteousness doth follow after and not precede, instancing in Isaac, which none denieth. For Infants are baptized on the account of their Parents faith, and not their own; and the adult oft profess the faith which they have not.

Note also here, besides Paraeus his express decision of the main controversie, how he takes the converted justified and believers for the same; and the unconverted, unjustified, and Infidels, for the same. Ragerus a little quarrels with Paraeus, and (as many Lutherans do) would make Abrahams example no standing Rule; that the Sacrament begets not the first Grace; [sed non sequitur, in hoc subjecto Circumcisio non habuit virtutem operativam gratiae primitus conferendae: ergò in nullo habuit: imò vero aliis gratiae divinae adhuc destitutis medium esse potuit gratiae primitus conferendae.] so others of that way. But as we distinguish between what God may do by Baptism, and what he hath Instituted it to do; so the very judgement of these Lutherans and many Papists, who will have Sacraments to confer Grace where it is not, is against the opinion that we now resist. For it is not any lower effect only, but saving Justification or Remission, which these make to be the present effect of it.

Dr. Willet in loc. saith [Circumcision then did not confer upon him that Grace which he had not, but did confirm and stablish him in the grace and faith received, the Sacraments then non Instituta sunt justificandis, sed justificatis, are not Instituted for those which are to be justified, but for them which are already justifyed. Parae.]

Peter Martyr is larger, and makes these words of Paul to be the definition of a Sacrament, to be a Seal of the Righteousness of faith. Much out of them might be cited for the cause in hand, but that I must avoid prolixity. So much shall serve for that Argument.

Argum. 7. We must Baptize none but those that are first professed Disciples of Christ (and their children, who are also Disciples) but none are professed Disciples of Christ that profess not saving faith in Christ; therefore we may not Baptize any that profess not saving faith in Christ.

The Major is proved from Matth 38.19. Go Disciple me all Nations, batizing them.] As for those that say, they are Discipled by baptizing, and not before baptizing. 1. They speak not the sense of that Text. 2. Nor that which is true or rational, if they mean it absolutely as so spoken; else why should one be baptized more then another. 3. But if they mean that by heart-covenant, or Gods Accep…ance and promise they are Disciples before, but not so compleatly till the covenant be sealed and solemnized, as a souldier is not so signally a souldier till he be listed, nor a King till he be crowned so fully a King, or a man or woman so fully married till it be solemnized in the Congregation; in this sense they say the same that I am proving: Men must be first Disciples by the professed consent, before they are declared such by the Seals or publike sacramental solemnization.

And that only the professors of saving Faith and their Infants are Disciples, may appear by a perusal of the Texts of Scripture that use this word; and it w…ll not only be found that this which I maintain is the ordinary use of the Word (which should make it so also with us) but that no Text can be cited where any others are called the Disciples of Christ. For the Major and Minor both observe Piscators Definition of Baptism (on Mat. 28.19.) Baptismus est sacramentum novi Testamenti, quo homines ad Ecclesiam pertinentes ex mandato Christi cultui veri Dei, qui est Pater, Filius & Spiritus Sanctus, per ministros verbi consecrantur, & in fide Remissionis peccatorum, & spe vitae aeternae confirmantur.] And he proveth this Description per partes: 1. That its a Sacrament. 2. That it belongeth to those that pertain to that Church, and that they only must be baptized qui ecclesiam fuerint ingressi, ac fidem evangelii professi, which he proveth from Mark 16.16. he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Vult Ergò (saith he) ut prius constet de alicuius fide quam baptizetur] Vnde Acts 8. Philippus Evangelista non prius baptizare voluit Eunuchum illum Aethiopem quam is professus esset fidem Christi] And by the proof from Mar. 16.16. It is apparent that he speaks of saving faith. Then he proves the last part of his description [Postremo per Baptismum homines in fide & spe confirmari liquet ex verbis, Qui crediderit & baptizatus fuerit salvabitur; & sic Petrus, Act 2.38. resipiscentes Judaeos jubet baptizari in remissionem pe…catorum, hoc est, ad confirmandam fidem remissionie peccatorum. Item, Act. 22.16. Ananias dicit Paulo recens converso, Baptizare & ablue peccata tua, hoc est, Baptizare ad confirmandam fidem remissionis peccatorum, quod abluta sint peccata tua sanguine Christi.]

Calvin in loc. saith [Baptizari jubet Christus eos qui nomen evangelio dederint, seque professi fuerint Discipulos, p…rtim ut illis Baptismus sit vitae aeternae tessera coram Deo; partim apud homines externum fidei signum. Scimus enim Deum nobis testari Adoptionis suae gratiam hoc signo; quia nos inserit in corpus filii sui, ut nos in grege suo censeat: Ideo & spirituale nostrum lavacrum, quo nos sibi reconciliat, ut nova justitia illic representatur. Sed quemadmodum gratiam suam Deus hoc sigillo nobis confirmat, ita quicunque se ad Baptismum offerunt, vicissim, quasi data syngrapha, obstringunt suam fidem.] And after [verum quia docere prius jubet Christus quam baptizare, & tantum credentes ad Baptismum vult recipi, videtur non ritè administrari baptismus, nisi fides precesserit.] On this pretence he shews that the Anabaptists oppose Infant-Baptism; To which he answers, not by receding from what is said before but by shewing that [eos qui fide in ecclesiam Dei ingressi sunt, videmus cum sua sobole censeri in Christi membris, & in salutis haereditatem simul vocari. Nec vero separatur hoc modo Baptismus à fide vel doctrina; quia licèt pueri infantes nondam per aetatem side percipiant Dei gratiam, Deus tamen eorum parentes compellans ipsus etiam complectitur.] So that it is Calvins judgement, that this very Text which is the most notable Copy of the Apostolical commission for the Baptizing of the discipled Nations, doth appoint that saving faith be professed, before men be baptized; and lie makes these to be the Disciples with their Infants; and that it is Reconciliation, Adoption, and the Inheritance of salvation that are sealed up to Parents and children by Baptism.

Paraeus in loc. saith [Cum Baptismus sit signum faederis testificans baptizatos recipi a Deo in gratiam, haud dubiè Pater, filius & spiritus sanctus sunt unus verus Deus, baptizatos in gratiam & foedus recipiens.] And he expoundeth this from Mar. 16.16. shewing that as the order is credere & baptizari; so that this is a true saving faith. [l…st autem credere Evangelio non solum assentiri doctrinae quod vera sit, sed fiducia certa sibi applicare promissionem gratiae; nos recipi in gratiam: nobis remissa esse peccata propter Christum. Commendat vero nobis fidem & baptismum duabus rationibus: una ab utili: salvabitur, h. e. vitam aeternam consequetur.] For my own part, I have before entered my dissent to such descriptions of justifying faith as make it to be a Believing that our sins are pardoned; but yet I agree with him and the rest in the main that it must be an Act of the will (embracing or accepting an offered Christ) as well as of the understanding, and that the Profession of it must go before Baptism.

But I shall further prove the Minor from some other Texts of Scripture, viz. that they are not Christs Disciples that Profess not saving faith (or are not the Infants of such.)

Luke 14.26, 27, 33. If any man come to me and hate not his Father and Mother, and Wife and Children, and Brothers and Sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my Disciple: and whosoever doth not bear his Cross and come after me, cannot be my Disciple: whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, cannot be my Disciple. This is spoken of true Disciples in heart (the first significatum) by him that knew the heart: From whence I argue thus, (If none are Christs Disciples in heart, nor can be, but those that value him above all, and will forsake all for him if he require it: then none can be his Disciples by external Profession, but those that Profess to esteem him above all, and to be willing to forsake all rather then forsake him: But the former is proved by the Text: The consequence is clear, in that the world hath hitherto been acquainted but with two sorts of Christians, or Disciples of Christ: the one such sincerely in heart; and the other such by Profession: and the latter are so called because they profess to be what the other are indeed, and what themselves are if they sincerely so profess. And it is the same thing Professed which makes a man a Professed Christian, which being found in the heart doth make a man a hearty Christian. Of these two sorts of Disciples & people of God, I spake as plain as I could speak, pag. 4. of the Saints Rest: But Mr. Blake never sticks when he meets with such passages to perswade the world that they are my self-contradictions, and that they make for him: as if it were all one to Profess a saving faith, even the Acceptance of Christ, and to Profess a faith short of saving. But I perceive by this how he is like to use other Authors that cannot speak for themselves, that would perswade men that I speak for him, even where I expresly speak for the same cause which I now maintain against him.

John 13.35. [By this shall all men know that ye are my Disciples, if ye love one another.] Here Christ giveth a certain badg by which his true Disciples may be known. If only those that love one another, are true Disciples in heart; then only those that Profess to love one another, are Disciples by Profession: But, &c. And that this Love is a special Grace, and Inseparable concomitant of saving faith, is manifest in that [By this we know that we are translated from death to life, because we love the Brethren, 1 Joh. 3.14. Joh. 8.31. If ye continue in my word, then are ye (that is, you will approve your selves) my Disciples indeed] If only those are Christs Disciples indeed, as to the heart, that have the Resolution of perseverance (and those only his Practical conquering Disciples who actually persevere) then only those are his Professed Disciples that Profess a Resolution to persevere. But; &c. Ergo, &c.

All this that I have said, is no more then we have ever practised, when in Baptism we renounced the World, Flesh, and Devil, and promised to fight under Christs Banner, to our lives end. Saith Piscator on John 13.35. Si pro Christianis, id est, Christs discipulis haberi volumus, oportet ut nos mutuò quàm ardentissimè diligamus, &c.

Object. Joh. 6.…0, 61, 66. Those are called his Disciples that were offended at his word and went back. Answ. 1. That's none of our question, whether Professed Disciples may not forsake Christ: we easily acknowledge it: But let it be proved that these did not before Profess a saving faith. 2. This makes as much against the Opponent as me: for it was the very want of a Dogmatical faith that they here manifested; being offended that Christ should tell them that they must eat his flesh.

Object. Act. 19.1. They are called Disciples that had not heard whether there be a Holy Ghost or not. Answ. If they had not heard, then it was not an article of necessity to their Justification. They had been baptized, and professed that faith which was saving when John baptized. 2. This is spoken only of that extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost.

Obj. Any one is a Disciple that is willing to learn of Christ. Answ. No such matter: In an improper sence you may so call them, but not in Scripture sense; where 1. A Disciple and a Christian are all one, Acts 11.26. But every one that is willing to learn of Christ is not a Christian; therefore not a disciple. 2. A Disciple of Christ is one that will take him for the great Prophet of the Church (which whosoever heareth not shall be cut off from Gods people) and will learn of him as of the Christ. But so wil not all that will learn of him: for a man that taketh Christ but for a common wise man as Socrates or Plato, may be willing to learn of him: and so may be his Disciple in another sense, but not in the Christian sense, as a Christian. 3. He that is sincerely a Disciple of Christ in heart, doth take him for one that by redemption also hath Propitiated the offended Majesty, and as King hath authority to rule him; and submitteth to him in his whole office as he is the Christ: For he cannot be truly a Christian that taketh not Christ as Christ, and believeth not in him in all that is essential to his office, and so to the object of our faith. As he that believeth that Christ is God only, or Man only, is no Christian, so he that believeth in him as a Teacher only; for that is no more then to believe in him as in Moses or Elias: 4. He that is sincerely a Disciple in heart, must take Christ for his only Teacher in the way to everlasting life, renouncing all other except as they stand under him; and must be willing to be taught and guided by him in all things: therefore he that is a professed Disciple, must profess all this: And that is to profess saving Faith. For without saving faith no man can so believe in him, or be heartily willing to be taught by him.

The lessons that they are to learn of him are self-denial, and the contempt of this world, and the love of one another, and to be meek and lowly in heart that they may find rest to their souls, Mat. 11.27, 28. And these he proclaimeth when he inviteth men to his school. But no ungodly man is willing to learn any of these: and therefore unwilling are they to be his Disciples.

Argum. 8. We ought not to baptize those persons (or their Infants as theirs) who are visible members of the Kingdom of the Devil (and his children) or that do not so much as profess their forsaking of the child-hood and Kingdom of the devil, But such are all that profess not a saving faith; Ergo.

The Major is proved thus. If we must Baptize none but for present admission into the Kingdom of Christ, then we must baptize none but those that profess a present departure from the Kingdom of the devil. But the former is true: therefore so is the latter. The Antecedent is granted by those that I have to do with. The reason of the consequence is evident, in that all the world is divided into these two Kingdoms, and they are so opposite that there is no passing into one but from the other.

The Minor of the first Argument I prove thus. All they are visibly in the Kingdom of the Devil, or not so much as by Profession removed out of it who Profess not a removal from that condition… in which the wrath of God abideth on them, and they are excluded by the Gospel from everlasting life. But such are all that profess not a justifying faith. Therefore I express the Major two waies disjunctively, lest any should run to instances of men that are converted & have not yet had a cal or opportunity to profess it. If such are not visibly in the Kingdom of the Devil, at least they are not visibly out of it. The Major is proved, in that it is the condition of the covenant of grace performed that differenceth the members of Christs Kingdom from Satans: and so it is that condition profest to be performed that visibly differenceth them before men. It is the promise of grace that bringeth them out of Satans Kingdom: therefore it is only done invisibly to those that profess the performance of the condition. Moreover to be out of Satans Kingdom visibly, is to be visibly from under his Government; but those that profess not saving faith, are not visibly from under his Government. Lastly to be visibly out of Satans Kingdom, is to be visibly freed from his power as the Executioner of Gods eternal vengeance: But so are none that profess not saving faith.

The Minor is proved from John 3.36. He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son, (or obeyeth not) shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him; where it is plain. 1. That the unbelief spoken of, is that which is opposed to saving faith, even to that faith which hath here the promise of everlasting life. 2. And that this leaves them visibly under the wrath of God.

So in Mar. 16.16. compared with Mat. 28.19. In the later Christ bids them make him Disciples; and in the former he describeth those that are such, and those that remain still in the Kingdom of Satan [He that blieveth and is Baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned] Here it is evident that the unbelief threatned is that which is contrary to (and even the privation of) the faith that Salvation is expresly promised to: and that all that profess not this saving fa…th, are not so much as professedly escaped a state of Damnation: and that this is the differencing Character of Christs Disciples to be baptized (of which yet more afterward), so Acts 26.18. It is the opening of mens eyes and the turning them from darkness to light, and the power of Satan to God, that they may receive Remission of sins, &c. which is the true state of them that are Christians in heart: and the Profession of this that proveth them professed Christians: and they that do not profess to be thus enlightned and converted, do not profess to be brought from under the power of Satan; for that is here made the terminus à quo.

So Col. 1.13. Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son.] Here the passing into the Kingdom of Christ is by passing from the Kingdom of darkness, so that he is not Cordially in one that is Cordially in the other; and consequently he is not by Profession in the one, who is not by Profession past from the other: He that professeth not such a faith as proveth men in Christs Kingdom, professeth not so much as may prove him out of Satans. And expresly it is said, 1 John 3.8 10. He that committeth sin, is of the Devil. In this the Children of God are manifest & the Children of the Devil; he that doth not righteousness is not of God, &c.] These passages will be further touched when we come to the Argument from the true visible Church.

Argum. 9. If it be the appointed use of all Christian Baptism to solemnize our marriage with Christ, or to seal or confirm our union with him, or ingraffing into him then must we baptize none that profess not justifying faith. (Because this is necessarily prerequisite, and no others can protend to union, marriage or ingraffing into Christ) But the Antecedent is true. Both Antecedent and consequence are evident in Gal. 3.27, 28, 29. For as many of you as have been baptized into Chr…st, have put on Chr…st — Ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Chr…sts, then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs acccoding to promise.] Here 1 We see that it is not an accidental or separable thing for baptism to be our visible entrance into Christ our putting him on, our admittance (by solemnization) into the state of Gods Children, and heirs acording to promise] For this is affirmed of all he baptized with true Christian Baptism; If we be truely baptized, we are baptized into Christ. If we we are baptized into Christ, then are we Christ's and have put on Christ, and are all one in Christ, and are Abrahams seed, and heirs according to promise. If any object that the Apostle speaks this but of some of them, even of the Regenerate, because he saith [as many of you] I answer, it is manifest that he speaks of all, 1 Because it was all of them that were baptized into Christ. 2. He expresly saith as much in the next foregoing words [vers. 26. For ye are all the Children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.] To which the words following are annexed as the proof. [For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.] The assumption is implied [But you have all bin baptized into Christ] therefore ye have all put on Christ, and so in him are all the Children of God. 2. Note that they are the special gifts of saving grace that are here ascribed to all the Baptized. 3. Note also that all this is said and proved to be by faith. 4. Note also that it is expresly said to be a …ustifying faith: before vers 24. [That we we might be justifyed by faith.]

Indeed this Text affordeth us divers Arguments. 1. The Apostle supposeth all the Baptized to profess a justifying faith, among the Galathians: therefore so must we suppose of others, and expect that they do it. The Antecedent is proved from vers. 24, 25. and 27. compared.

2. All the Baptized are said to have put on Christ, therefore they are supposed to profess that faith by which Christ is put on: But that is only justifying faith. 3. All that are duly Baptized are baptized into Christ: therefore they are supposed to profess that faith by which men are united or ingraffed into Christ; but that is only justifying faith. But the rest of the Arguments here will be further touched on anon.

Mr. Blake saith p. 152. [Whether all union with Christ imply Regeneration, let John 15.2. be consulted, where an union with Christ is clearly held out: Yet Mr. Baxter brings that text among, others to prove that there are some saints that shall never be saved] Answ. 1. But I told you that by Saints I meant only those that profess an Acceptance of Christ, and not your Saints that only profess a lower faith. In this you do by me as you use. 1. Union with Christ in the primary and proper sense is proper to the sound believer; or else no Title or benefit on earth is proper to him. But as those are believers in profession that are not so in heart, so those are united to or ingraffed into the Church, and so to Christ, by an outward Profession, who are not so in heart. And this is called a Union, because they profess that inward Union which they have not, which is the famosius significatum. Whether these be only equivocally said to be united to Christ, we shall enquire in season. But tell me where any man was ever said in scripture to be united to Christ without saving faith, or the Profession of it? 3. I suppose you know how many of our Divines do expound Iohn 15, of a saving Union, and take the cautions about unfruitfulness and Apostacy to be de rebus nunquam futuris, purposely given that they might not be future: But this I stick not on.

Next he citeth Mr. Cobbet, Mr. Hudson, and Mr. Ames, to shew that *Mr. Rutheford saith if Sc…ipture …n where callet Christ the …ead of the visible Chur… as su…h, as after cited.Christ is the head of the visible Church, and hath many unfruitful members, &c. Answ. As pertinent as most Citations that I there have met with, that is, utterly impertinent. It's yielded that as they have a Profession of saving faith, so by profession they are members of the visible Church. But prove if you can that ever any are such visible members, but the professors of a saving faith, and their Children.

I conclude then▪ that Christ hath appointed no Baptism but what is for a visible marriage of the soul to himself (as the Protestants ordinarily confess) therefore he hath appointed no Baptism but for those that profess to take Jesus Christ for their Husband, and to give up themselves to him as his Espouse. But this is a Profession of Justifying faith. For heartily to take Christ for our Head and Husband, is true saving faith, and proper to his own Regenerate people, if any thing in the world be so. And no man can profess to be married to Christ that doth no… profess to take him for a Husband. Therefore for my part, I never intend to baptize any without profession of saving faith. As for Mr. Blakes answer that [we are oftener said here to be espoused to Christ, then married] I think that this and many hundred such passages, do need no answer: But yet I shall say, 1. Either will serve my turn. No unregenerate man is truly espoused to Christ. 2. Though the whole Church in one, be solemnly to be married to Christ at judgement, that is, presented perfect, justified and glorified; yet that particular believers are married to Christ here, I am resolved by Gods assistance to believe while I believe Isa. 54.5. Eph. 5. and many other Texts of scripture.

Arg. 10. If Paul account all the Baptized, Saints, or sanctified men, dead with Christ and risen with him, such as have put on Christ, sons of God by Adoption, Abraham seed, Heirs according to promise, and justified, then did they all profess a true justifying faith. But the Antecedent is certain, ergò so is the consequent.

The Antecedent Mr. Blake confesseth. And I shall prove it by parts. The consequence is that which lieth chiefly on me to prove; and I shall do both together.

The Apostle in the beginning of his Epistle to the Corinthians and in may other places calls the whole Church Saints, 1 Cor 6.11. He saith to them, [But ye are washed, ye are sanctified, &c,] That part of the Antecedent then is certain. The consequence I prove thus. There are none called Saints in all the new Testament, but only such as where in heart Devoted to Christ by a saving faith; or Professed so much: therefore the word Saints in this case must signifie only such. If any will prove a third sort of Saints, viz. such as profess a faith not saving, they must do that which I never yet saw done.

2. The first and most famous signification of the word Saints or Sanctified in the new Testament, is only of them that are in heart devoted to Christ by true faith: therefore the borrowed or Analogical, or less proper signification (call it what you list) must be of that which hath the likeness or appearance of this; and that is only the profession of it, and not the profession of another thing.

3. Let us peruse the texts, and see whether it be not a special Saint-ship which Paul ascribeth to these, and therefore as to appearance and Profession, they had! 1 Cor. 6.11. [such were some of you; but ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the spirit of our God] and that sanctification wh…ch is joyned with justification, which is wrought by the spirit of God cleansing men from their former reigning sins, which else would have kept them out of the Kingdom of God, and which was in them that must judge Angels. ver. 3. was a special saving sanctification. But such did this seem to Paul which he speaketh of, as is exprest in the Text: therefore there must needs be at least a Profession of this.

And because Mr. Blake tells me pag. 14…. how well I know that he hath proved his assertion, I shall peruse all those Texts which he citeth to that end, in his Book of the Covenants, p…g. 207 208. And first we must observe, that the persons that he there himself speaketh of, are [Visible Professors] as distinct from the [Elect and Regenerate,] yea from those that [are really Saints, and shall be for heaven:] And he calleth them [men separate for God and Dedicated to him.] But this is unedifying slippery dealing to confound two distinct causes to…ther. He that is professedly Dedicated to God, is a Professor of saving Faith. He that is really and heartily Dedicated to …od, shall certainly be saved. Here Mr. Blake pleadeth the cause that I do maintain, and not that which he hath undertaken against me and the common truth. I confess as well as he, that Profession maketh Saints visible, or by profession, as hearty Dedication to God by faith maketh real or heart-Saints. But how angry is he himself afterwards at this distinction of [Real and Professed Saints] as if that none but the justified were real Saints. But what is all this to a Saint-ship consisting in the Profession of a faith short of that which is Justifying? I shall take these last to be Mr. Blake's Saints, and no Scripture Saints, (I mean Saints of his denomination.) till he have better proved that ever Scripture so calleth them. The Texts cited by him are these: Frst, Psal. 16.3. [Saints on earth.] And I yield to him that there are Saints on earth. Then 1 Cor. 16.1. & Heb. 16.10. where we read of [Collections for the Saints,] and [Administration to the Saints] By these (I doubt not) but he may prove that more than the heart-Saints are called Saints▪ but that is because they profess and seem to be heart-Saints. These Texts are far from proving that there are any Saints that profess not saving sanctity. I shall anon tell Mr. Blake who they were that Calvin and other Protestants do expound the word [Saints] of, in such Passages as these; though he hath already told us, that he [abhorreth] the Doctrine which they maintain.

But this is a Practical case that Mr. Blake hath here put us upon; the Communion of Saints doth not only consist in Conjunction in God's Worship, but also in mutual relief, and free communication of outward things, as the Text which he here citeth doth declare. Those therefore that are of his mind must communicate as well to the Professors of a common Faith, as of a saving Faith. But hear who they be that Pareus supposeth Paul to mean [in loc. Docemur vero ad foreign sanctorum quam credimus, etiam huc pertinere, ut necessitatibus fratrum mutuò tangamur, & pro virili succurramus prompte & fideliter; sumus enim unius Corporis membra, &c. Nam Fidei & charitatis unitas omnes in Christo Capite conjungit] It is then the Members of Christ united in him and joyned in Faith and Love: And those that Profess to be such, are so to us.

Acts 26.10. Acts 9.2. [When Paul shut up many of the Saints in prison, and did much evil against them, he knew no other way of distinction than an outward Profession, &c.] saith Mr Blake.

Answ. Nor do we know means hearts; nor think that Paul knew them. But the Question is, What they professed? Whether saving Sanctity or a common Sanctity and Faith short of it?

He addeth, [We read of Churches of the Saints, 1 Cor. 14.33. and they were taken in to be Church-Members as soon as they made profession, as they ceased to be Jews or Pagans, and took them to the way of Christianity, as we see Act. 2. Act. 8.12, 13, 38.] Ans. 1. They renounced the way of ungodliness and wickedness in general by a Profession of repentance, as well as the way of Paganism and Judaiism, in particular. There were no Christians that Professed not Repentance towards God; from dead works. 2. We believe that there were Churches of the Saints; and therefore that none should be of the Church that Profess not to be true Saints. But prove if you can that there was ever either Church or Church-member called Saints in Scripture, that had no either special Sanctity or a Profession of it. You say nothing to prove that any were called Saints upon the Profession of a Faith short of saving Faith.

Emphaticum est (saith Calvin in loc.) quod exprimit sanctorum acsi Ecclesias rite compositas à sinistra nota subduceret.] Of which see him fully on 1 Cor. 1.2. And as for those Acts 8. you cannot prove that any of them were either called Saints or Baptized without a Profession of a Justifying faith: as shall further be shewed afterward.

M. Blake addeth [The Epistles wrote to particular visible Churches are inscribed to Saints; among which, what some are, read both the Epistles to the Corinthians; yea, what almost all are in some Churches, read the Epistle to the Church of Sardis. Answ. 1. No man in any of these Churches is called a Saint upon the Profession of any lower kind of faith, but only on the presence or profession of saving faith. 2. I have not heard a proof that the worst of these Church…s had many members, (if any) that were impenitent and obstin…te in any error or sin after admonition, and so that were visibly destitute of the saving Sanctity which they did Profess. 3. If such there were, the Churches are commanded to cast them out, and then they will be no longer numbred with the Saints. 4. The Apostles may well call the whole Society Saints when part are really so in heart, and the rest Profess it. We commonly tell both Papists and Separatists, that the Scripture thus denominateth the whole from the better part; as a field is called a Corn-field, though theree be more Tares then Corn; and yet you will not call the Tares Corn: No more will I call the ungodly Saints, when I know them though I will call the Church Saints where they are, and them, while they Profess themselves Saints, and I know not but they are so. 5. If you can with patience but read what Clavin saith on 1 Cor. 1.2. and Peter Martyr (to name no more now) you will see that Doctrine which you abhor maintained by the Protestants, and in what current it is that your opinion floweth.

Mr. Blake adds [The Apostle tells us of the faith once delivered to the Saints: Jude 3. the doctrine of Faith as is agreed on all hands, all that profess that Doctrine are Saints.] Answ. All that cordially entertain that Doctrine are Saints in Heart; All that profess so to entertain it are Saints by Profession. (while that Profession hath any validity.) But all that barely profess to assent to the truth of that Doctrine, and no mo…e, (unless as that Assent may imply the Consent of the Will) are not Saints.

But let us peruse some other Texts besides these that Mr. Blake citeth. The Congregations of the Saints are mentioned in the Old Testament, as Psal. 89 5, 7. and 149 1. But what Saints these were, may appear by the Promises made to them. Ps. 149.5, 9, 4 & 16.3. & 37.28. & 97.10 & 132.9, 16. & 145 10. The Children of Israel, a people neer unto him are called Saints, Psal. 148.14. but it is because they are a part of them, his people in heart, and the rest profess themselves to be his People in a saving sense. And if there were any that did not so, he was not an Israelite by Religion, nor to be of that Common-wealth, but to be cut off from his People.

Acts 9.13. The Saints at Jerusalem that Paul persecuted, were such as not only professed saving Faith, but also had the witness of Martyrdom and Persecutions to testifie their Sincerity. They that continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship, and breaking bread, and prayers, having all things common, selling their possessions and goods, and parting them to all men as every man had need, praising God &c. did profess more then a Faith and Repentance short of that by which we are saved: But so did the Church at Jerusalem, Act. 2.41, 42. to the end; yea, the multitude of them that Believed were of one heart, & one soul, and great grace was upon them all, &c. Acts 4.32. to 36. so that we may see what Saints the Church at Jerusalem were. And if all were not such, we see evidently that the whole was denominated from such.

The Church of Rome were all called Saints, Rom. 1.7. True: But what was meant by that word, and what Saints did they appear to Paul by their Profession to be? Even such as were [beloved of God, whose Faith was spoken of throughout the world, that were dead to sin, but alive to God, that had obeyed from the heart that form of Doctrine delivered to them, and being made free from sin became the servants of Righteousness and of God, having their fruit to holiness, and the end everlasting life, Rom. 1.7, 8. and 6 11, 14, 17, 18, 21. whose obedience was come abroad to all men. Rom. 16.19. Here is more then the Profession of a common Faith.

The Corinthians are called Saints; True: But what is meant by Saints? such as [called on the name of the Lord Iesus Christ, having much of his grace, enriched by him in all things, coming behind in no Gift, waiting for the coming …f our Lord Iesus Christ, who shall confirm them to the end, that they may be blameless at his coming, 1 Cor. 1.2. to ver. 10. all was theirs, 1. Cor. 3.22, 23. They were such Saints as were washed, and sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Iesus, and by the Spirit of God; and such as were to …udge the World, and the Angels, Chap. 6.3, 11. delivered from that unrighteousness that would have kept from Heaven, ver. 9.10, 11. such as had no temptation but what was common to man, whom the faithful God would not suffer to be tempted above their strength, &c. Chap. 10.13. such as were not so much as to eat with the notoriously wicked, Chap. 5 11. and therefore doubtless Professed Godliness themselves; in whom godly sorrow had wrought carefulness, clearing of themselves, zeal, &c. 2 Cor. 7.11. in whom the Apostle had confidence in all things, ver. 16.

Object. But Paul saith, they were carnal, and taxeth them with some gross Errors and Sins.

Answ. 1. So are all the Regenerate carnal in part, and guilty of too many sins: And it is not Impenitency after admonition that he chargeth them with. Their sin was no worse to our eye than David's or Solomon's.

2. If any were so bad as to be notoriously ungodly, those are not of that number whom he calleth Saints, as they are not of them that have the following Descriptions of Saints which I have cited; but only were among them, but not of them.

The Galathians I find not called Saints; but to call them a Church of Christ, or Believers, is Equipollent. And what Saints were they? Why they were [all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus, having been baptized into Christ, and put him on, and were all one in him, and were Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the Promise.] Gal. 3.26, 27, 29. And [because they were sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into their hearts, by which they cryed Abba Father, and therefore were no more servants but sons, and if sons, then heirs of God through Christ.]

Object. But Paul was afraid of them, lest he bestowed upon them labour in vain.

Answ. 1. It appeareth by what is said, that it was not such a fear as made him take them for ungodly.

2. This confirmeth what I maintain; that the Apostles judgement of them proceeded according to the Evidences of probability: He took himself bound to believe their Profession so far as they contradicted it not; and according to the prevalency of their Errors which were against it, he was jealous of their condition: and if they had proceeded so far as to have declared themselves certainly ungodly, Paul would have denominated them a Church no more.

The Church of Ephesus are called Saints, Eph. 1.1. But what Saints? such as were [blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, chosen before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before him in love, p…edestinated to the adoption of Children by Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his Grace, wherein he made them accepted in the beloved, in whom they had redemption through his blood, the remission of sins, and have obtained an Inheritance, being predestinated, &c. Who trusted in Christ, and were sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise, which is the earnest of their Inheritance: they were such as believed in the Lord Jesus, and loved all the saints, and were quickened, who had been dead in trespasses and sins, & were raised up together, and made to sit in heavenly places.] If Mr. Blake, while he abhorreth the name of a Saint or Church equivocally so called, would not make all words equivocal that in Scripture are used to denominate or describe a Church or Saint, we might easily be resolved by such passages as these, what Paul meaneth by a Church or Saint.

See further Eph. 3.18. All Saints comprehend what is the breadth, and length, & depth, & height; and Christ dwelleth in their hearts by faith, and they rooted and grounded in love] Eph. 3.17, 18. But Mr. Blakes Saints do none of this; therefore they are no Saints in Scripture sense. With this text compare Eph. 2.19. and see what a Church is and what it is to be fellow-Citizens with the Saints, and of the houshold of God: and Eph. 4.12. what Saints they were that were to be perfected: and 5 3. what Saints they were that must not so much as name Coveteousness, filthiness, &c. And 3.8. Paul professeth himself less then the least of all Saints: But Paul never did nor would profess himself less then the least of Mr. Blakes Saints, who are not as much as by profession in a state of salvation, nor from under the curse and wrath of God. He that pronounceth them accursed with Anathema Maranatha, that loved not the Lord Jesus, & bids grace be with them that love him in sincerity, (1 Cor. 16.22. Eph. 6.24.) would not have pronounced himself less than the least of these excommunicate accursed ones. And were I worthy to be heard, I would advise my Reverend Brother to better consideration before he make such accursed Saints, or Churches, or Believers, at least that are visibly so: and that he would be cautelous of Canonizing those on whom Paul pronounceth Anathema Maranatha.

Right to Sacraments, Disputation 2 (2 of 4)