Right to Sacraments, Disputation 2 · Argument 1 – Argument 18
ARGUMENT I.
Mr. Blake They that have right in the sight of God to many and great Priviledges of his gift, have a right in his sight to the first and leading Priviledges; this I think cannot be denied: having a right to those that follow, they have right to those that lead. If any had in the time of the Law right to the Passeover, they had right to Circumcision; and if any now have right to the Lords Supper, they have right to Baptism. But those of a faith that is short of that which …ustifies, have right to many and great Priviledges in the sight of God. This is clear from the Apostle, Rom. 3.1. The Jew outwardly where Circumcision of heart was wanting, had every way much benefit and advantage; he had therefore right to Circumcision, and those with him that are short of a faith that justifies, have right in the sight of God to Baptism.
ANSWER I.
The question is not in the conclusion. If all be granted, its nothing for Mr. Blake's cause or against mine. It is not all one to conclude [those that are short of a faith that …ustifies have right] and [such a faith gives right] or is the qualification, condition, or evidence of right either. A man that is a Burgess of such a Corporation hath right to be Major. But his Burgesship gives him not that right, but his election. A Frenchman hath right to the Crown of France, but not because he is a Frenchman. The Jew outwardly, Rom. 3. had not his right by a faith short of justifying; But he had first an actual abode among Ordinances, and the offers of Grace and helps to salvation, by free providentiall disposal of mercy. 2. The claim that he made to Church-priviledges before men, must be upon his Professing of saving faith; viz. That he took the Lord only for his God, and believed in him according to the tenor of the Promise: and not upon the having or Professing of a faith of another Species.
This answer sufficeth as to the present controversie: But because Mr. Blake doth seem also to intend these Arguments to the following controversie, I shall briefly enervate them as to both, that I may not be put to go over them again when I come to that controversie.
2. I deny that Baptism is [the first and leading Priviledge of Gods gifts.] It is a great Priviledge to have the Gospel preached to them, to have pardon conditionally offered them, that is, if they will accept of Christ to be converted, and made a true believer; to be born of Christian Parents. &c. These and more are Priviledges, and before baptism. 3. I distinguish at large of the term (Right) in my Apologie. Here let it suffice to say: 1. Right is properly so called, which in this case must arise from a promise or proper gift. 2. Or it is Analogically so called, which ariseth 1. indirectly from Gods command to the Parent, Priest, Pastor &c. to do this for all that require it, upon a profession of true faith. 2. Or from bare permission or providential disposal. 4. I distinguish also the Jews case from ours: They had some promise of a continuance of Ordinances among them, though not for perpetuity, yet for a long time, which no Church on earth hath now. 5. And now I answer to the Minor: 1. An Analogical improper right, resulting from permission, and a command to Ministers to Baptize all that upon such a profession require Baptism, this I ever granted to all that profess saving faith. 2. But a proper right, from promise or proper gift, which may warrant them to claim or require the thing from God or man; this I deny to any but true believers and their seed. They may not lawfully require it, though we must give it them if they do require it, upon such a profession. 3. But without a profession of saving faith, they may neither require it, nor we give it if they do require it, whatever other short faith they have, or profess. 4. Thus also the Case was with the Jews, allowing the difference made by the foresaid peculiar Promise to them.
ARGUMENT II.
Mr, Blake. Those that are a People by Gods gracious dispensation nigh to God, comparative to others, have right in the sight of God to visible admittance to this more near relation. This I think is clear; men have right to be admitted to their right. But those that come short of Justifying faith, are a people by Gods gracious dispensations nigh unto God, comparative to others; this is plain in the whole visible Nation of the Jews, as appears, Deut. 4 7. Psal. 147.19. and 148.14. Those therefore that are short of Justifying faith, have right in the sight of God to admission to this nearer relation.
ANSWER.
The Jews were nigher to God than other people. 1. In that they had the offers of Grace which other people had not. 2. And many great Deliverances and temporal priviledges, which others had not. Both these Infidels and Heathens may now have; and therefore they prove no Right to Baptism. 3. They were nigher by some promises peculiar to that Nation, which is nothing to us. 4. They were nigher by their Consent to the offers of Grace, and the Covenant of the Lord; which was proper (in sincerity) to the sanctified. 5. And by their profession of Consent, and external engaging themselves to the Lord (whether they had inwardly faith or not.) Now to the Major, I grant it: but add, that the three first sorts of Nearness give not right to Baptism: All admission to near Relation, comparatively to others, is not by Circumcision or Baptism. But it is only a Nearness in the two last senses that are questionable as to this. And I have before shewd, in what sense true Consent to the Covenant gives right, and in what sense an outward profession of Consent gives right; and that your common faith gives none in either sense. Lastly, if your conclusion were granted, its nothing to our question: For as is said, all admission to near relation is not by baptism: One Infidel may be nearer God and the Kingdom of Heaven then another, and yet … be baptizable for all that.
ARGUMENT III.
Mr. Blake. Those that God ordinarily calls his People, and owns as his, openly avouching himself to be their God, have right in the sight of God to the signs and cognizance of his People, and are to have admission into the society and Fellowship of his People. This is pla…n, if God in Covenant will own servants, then his stewards may open the door to them; if he will own sheep, his servants doubtless may mark them. But God owns all in visible communion, though short of faith that is Justifying▪ as his People, and openly avouches himself to be their God, as in abundant places of Scriture is evident: See Deut. 26.18. These have therefore right to the signs and cognizances of his people, to admission into the Society and Fellowship of his People.
ANSWER.
1. To the Major, with the fore-mentioned distinction of Right, applyed as before, I grant it. 2. To the Minor I say, God owneth them as his people by internal consent and covenanting, who indeed are so: and he owneth them as his People by outward Covenanting, or Expression or Profession of consent, who are such: But those that have neither of these, but only profess some shorter faith, or consent to some other Covenant, or but part of this, he will not own in either relation, nor would have them taken into the Communion of his Church. Nor do you prove any such thing; for Deut. 26.18. is so much against you, that I marvel you were not troubled at the citing of it: For that Text alone is enough to confute all your pompous allegations out of the Old Testament from the Church state of the Jews. The words are [Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, and to walk in his waies, and to keep his Statutes, and his Commandments and his Judgements, and to hearken to his voice: And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, &c.] Do you think that they that in heart consent that the Lord be their God, and to walk in his waies, &c. have not saving faith? Then there was no such thing then on the earth. And if they had such faith, who sincerely consented, then they Professed such faith that Professed such consent. And the word [avouching sheweth that it was present profession, and not only a promise for some distant futurity. This Argument therefore is but like the rest.
ARGUMENT IV.
Mr. Blake. Those whom the Spirit of God ordinarily calls by the name of Circumcision, they had a right in Gods sight to Circumcision; and those of like condition have like right to baptism; This I think is clear; the Spirit of God doth not mis-name, doth not nick-name, nor ordinarily at least give equivocal names. But men short of Justifying faith are called by the Spirit of God by the name of Circumcision, as needs no proof. Christ was a Minister of the Circumcision, Rom 15.8. And he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Those then of a faith short of that which is Justifying, have right in the sight of God to Baptism.
ANSWER.
1. I have no need to deny the Major; but it is not sound: for they are called the Circumcision, i. e. the Circumcised; because they were actually Circumcised, and not because that all that were so had right to it. 2. To the Minor, I grant it; but with this note, that it is not because of their short faith that they were to be circumcised, but upon the Parents or their own profession and sincere consent to the Covenant. The Conclusion again containeth not your Thesis. There's nothing in it about [giving title] or any thing of necessary connexion.
ARGUMENT. V.
Mr. Blake. Those that are the servant of God, whom God owns as his servants, have right in his sight to be received into his house, and to be entitled to the Priviledges of his Church. This we think should not be denyed, and that God will take it ill if any shall deny it. But men short of that faith which Justifies, are owned of God as his servants, as is clear, Lev. 25.41, 42. There every Israelite that was sold to any of the Children of Israel, and his Children are called of God his servants, and that as Israelites; of which a great part were void of that faith which Justifies. Therefore those that are short of faith which Justifies, have right in the sight of God to be thus received. This Argument me thinks might be of force with Mr. Baxter. When he had urged it for proof, that infants are servants and ought to be baptized, he add… pag. 18. [is not here direction enough to help us to judge of the mind of God, whether infants are his Disciples and Servants or no? Doth not God call them his servants himself? What more should a man expect to warrant him to do so? Men call for plain Scripture, and when they have it, they will not receive it: so hard is it to inform a forestalled mind.] If God took such care upon that account, that they should not be held in bondage under any of his People, he takes like care that they should not be kept from the Society of his People.
ANSWER.
1. The Major is true. 1. distinguishing of Right, as before; 2. and of Servants; and taking the word Servants in a peculiar sense, as Lev. 25.41. doth. The Minor also and the Conclusion is thus granted. But Mr. Blake's Conclusions have a common unhappiness to be strangers to the question: Doth it follow because I must baptize those that profess sincere Covenanting or Fai…h, though they have but a faith of another sort, that therefore I must baptize them on the account of that other faith? By such an Argument. I may as well prove that Infidelity or Heathenism gives right to Baptism, thus: Many Infidels or Heathens have right to baptism (that is, those that in heart are such, have such a Right as yours pleaded for, upon the account of an external Profession of Christianity.) Therefore infidelity or Heathenism gives them right. If this Consequence must be denyed, so must yours.
ARGUMENT VI.
Mr. Blake. Those that bring forth Children to God, have a right in the sight of God to be of his houshold, and to be taken into it: This is plain; especially to those that know the Law of servants in families, that all the Children in right were the Masters, and had their relation to him: But those that are short of Justifying faith, bring forth Children to God, Ezek. 16.20, 21.
ANSWER.
This Argument is sick of the common disease of the rest; the Conclusion is a stranger to the question. Quâ tales, they bring not forth Children to God in any Church sense.
ARGUMENT VII.
Mr. Blake. Children of the Kingdom of God, or those that are Subjects of his Kingdom, have right in the sight of God to be received into his Kingdom. This Proposition Mr. Baxter hath proved, pag. 21. therefore I may save my pains. But those that are short of faith that Justifies, are Children or Subjects of this Kingdom, Mat. 8.12. The Children of the Kingdom shall be cast into outer darkness. Those therefore that are short of Justifying faith, have right in the sight of God to be thus received.
ANSWER.
This Argument also hath the same distemper: Its nothing to the Que…ion. They are Children of the Kingdom visibly, in regard of the profession of a saving faith, and not of any common faith tha… is short of it. Prove that, or you say nothing.
ARGUMENT VIII.
Mr. Blake. The Children of the Covenant have right in the sight of God to the Seal of the Covenant. This is evident, the seal is an affix to the Covenant: Where a Covenant is made, and a seal appointed, there it is not of right to be denied. But those that are short of faith that Justifies, are the children of the Covenant, Act. 3 25. The Apostle speaking to the People of the Jews saith, Ye are the Children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers.
ANSWER.
Still the Question is wanting in the conclusion. The same Answer serves to all. Its a sad case that the Church of God should be thus used by its Friends: to have such gross mistakes presented to the unskilfull, which (to use your own phrase to me, pa. 145.) do serve only to blind the Reader.
ARGUMENT IX.
Mr. Blake. Disciples of Christ have right in the sight of God to Baptism, as appears in Christs commissiion, Mat. 28.19. But many are Disciples of Christ, that are short of a Faith that justifies: therefore those that are short of a Faith that justifies, have right in the sight of God to Baptism. If all that I have said, pa. 208. of the Treatise of the Covenant to prove this assumption, be too weak, as I think it is not, Mr. Baxters proof pag. 21. of his Treatise hath sure strength sufficient; there he proves that Infants are Disciples, because they are subjects of Christs Kingdom; and what Kingdom he means, he there explains himself. [I speak not here (saith he) of his Kingdom in the largest sense, as it containeth all the world; nor yet in the strictest, as it containeth only his Elect: but in the middle sense, as it containeth the Church visible, as it is most commonly used.] And therefore by the way not equivocally used. Those then of this middle posture, non-elect, are Disciples.
ANSWER.
Still the same Error. None are Disciples upon the account of your other faith, but of either saving faith, or the profession of it. And as this and all the rest do look to the Other Controversies, the foresaid distinction of Right applyed as is often done before, is all that need to be said in answer to them.
ARGUMENT X.
Mr. Blake. Christians have right in the sight of God to Baptism; This is Mr. Baxter's Proposition in the page before quoted; and in reason is plain; Christians must not be kept out of Christian fellowship. This is Mr. Baxter's likewise in the place quoted; he makes Disciples Christians, and subjects of Christs visible Kingdom to be one and the same. Therefore those that are short of Justifying faith have Right, &c.
ANSWER.
Still the same disease. You should have concluded that your lower faith gives Right.] None are Christians on the account of your lower kind of faith, but only of saving faith or the profession of it.
ARGUMENT XI.
Mr. Blake. All that ought to be admitted visible Church-m…mbers, ought to be admitted in the sight of God to baptism. This none can question unless they charge it as Tautological, and it is Mr. Baxter's pa. 2.3. and the medium of that Argument which he makes the chief of all he useth. But those that are short of Justifying faith are members of the Church visible. Therefore those that are short of justifying faith, are to be admitted to baptism. The assumption is his likewise, where he distinguisheth the visible Kingdom from the Elect, and no man can deny it that grants the distinction of a Church into visible and invisible.
ANSWER.
The same disease still. None short of saving faith ought to be admitted member, but on the Profession of it. What if I distinguish the visible Kingdom from the Elect? Once for all I let you know, that I take saving faith to be the constitutive or necessary qualification of a real or mystical member: and Profession of that faith to be the qualifying condition of Visibility of Member-ship: But your other kind of Faith to be neither.
ARGUMENT XII.
Mr. Blake. The Children of God have right in the sight of God to be admitted to Baptism; this is clear enough: but men short of Justifying faith are Children of God, even those that drew down judgements on the old world, as Gen 6.2. The whole body of the children of Israel. Deut. 14.1.
ANSWER.
The same Error continued, requireth the same Answer.
ARGUMENT XIII.
Mr. Blake. Those whom God ingraff's by his power into the true Olive, and makes partakers of the fatness of the Olive, they have right in the sight of God to be admitted. This is plain: God ingraffing, right must not be denied: but he ingraff's by his power those that are short of that faith that justifies: even the whole body of the Church of the Gentiles, and we expect the like of the Church of the Jews, as appears from the Apostle, Rom. 11. Therefore those that are short of a justifying faith, have right in the sight of God to Baptism.
ANSWER.
Again the same Error: Therefore accept the same Answer.
ARGUMENT XIV.
Mr. Blake. All of those that professedly embrace a Gospel-tender, in which there is a conditional Promise of Justification, Adoption, Glorification, have right in the sight of God to all Ordinances, ordinarily necessary and requisite to bring them up to these conditions, and to the fruition of these glorious Priviledges, and consequently to baptism the leading priviledge. This none can deny that know the readiness of Christ, in imparting saving ordinances to a People. But those that are short of faith which is justifying, may embrace a Gospel-tender, in which there is a conditional Promise of Justification, Adoption, Glorification. Those therefore that are short of faith which is justifying, have right in the sight of God to all such Ordinances, and consequently to Baptism.
ANSWER.
[Embracing] is a Metaphor, and can signifie nothing here but their Wills, Consent, and Use. The words [Gospel tender] signifie either the thing tendered, or the act of the tenderer. To consent to, and so embrace the latter, is no more than to be willing to hear, or to consent tha… God and his Messengers shall make the render. This an Hea…hen or Infidel may do. To consent to, and embrace the thing tendered, upon the terms that it is tendered, is saving faith. In that sense therefore I deny the Minor: and in the former the Major, as extending to Baptism. All that consent that Christ shall be offered to them, ought not to be baptized nor any on that account. None that consent to have Christ offered, (Christ as Christ) can be truly said to be short of saving faith. If by [embracing] you mean Metonymically [the profession of embracing Christ] then you say as I say, & give up your Cause. Its that Profession, and not his short faith, nay that without any faith, that will warrant us to baptize him.
ARGUMENT XV.
Mr. Blake. If the Apostle argue for a right to Baptism from gifts that are common to the justified and unjustified, then faith which is short of justifying, gives right in the sight of God to Baptism. This none can deny, unless they will call the Apostles Logick into question, and deny his Consequence. But the Apostle thus argues for a right to Baptism, from those gifts that are common to the justified and unjustified: This is plain Act. 10.47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? The Holy Ghost there, is the gift of the Holy Ghost then poured out; the gift of tongues, as in the 45, & 46. verses is held forth, which is a gift not only inferiour to Charity, but such as may be served from it, 1 Cor. 13.1. A gift of that kind, that men of a miraculous faith ordinarily did as in an instant conferr. They are therefore gifts common to the justified and unjustified. Those therefore of faith short of that which is justifying have right to Baptism,
ANSWER.
This is the only Argument of all the seventeen that doth so much as speak to the question. A strange way of arguing▪ To the Major. 1. I deny the Consequence. The Argument will not hold from one common gift, to any common gifts, nor to this common faith. Prove this Consequence. 2. I distinguish in the Antecedent between arguing from gifts as a Title, or the condition of a Title, and arguing from them as satisfactory evidences of a Title, such as profession it self is. To the proof from Acts 10.47. I say further: It followeth not [he that hath received the Holy Ghost may be baptized] therefore he that hath your common faith may be baptized. For thats no evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost. 2. The Holy Ghost was promised only to be true Believers, Mark 16.17. and not to any others: Yet God did not hereby restrain his own power from giving it to others. Seeing therefore God had promised it to true believers, though he did give it to some others, it followeth that it was a probable evidence of saving faith, though not a certain: And therefore it might warrant us to baptize them, as Profession it self might do: Especially when it accompanied that Profession: seeing that both Evidences are more full than one, and yet one is sufficient as to us. 3. You cannot prove that ever God gave the holy Ghost to any that professed not saving faith: Nor yet that any man was baptized upon any such gift of Miracles without the profession of saving faith. Those Acts 10. confessed Christ, and professed faith before they were baptized. 4. You cannot prove that it was only common gifts of the Spirit that is meant in Acts 10.47. For ordinarily the Holy Ghost was given at once for Sanctification and such extraordinary works. And anologum per se positum stat pro significato famosiori. And their praising God doth intimate their love to God, and honour of him, and sense of his goodness; which proceed from the sanctifying Spirit.
ARGUMENT XVI.
Mr. Blake. If the promise be to others besides Believers, then so is the seal; for to whom God promiseth, to them he engageth himself to perform: But the Promise is to others; therefore the seal is to others. This will be evident, if it be once understood that it is only the conditional Covenant, which God sealeth by the Sacraments; for this promise is made to unbelievers, though the good promised is not to be enjoyed by any but those that perform the condition.
ANSWER.
The 16th. Argument Mr. Blake fetcheth from my words to Mr. Tombs, that he may prove me a self-contradicter. But I do not contradict my self every time Mr. Blake understandeth me not. I confess still that the Seal is to others besides Believers; but though the promise be conditional, we must not seal to any but those that profess consent to the Conditions: And therefore not to any but those that profess to be true believers.
ARGUMENT. XVII.
Mr. Blake. If God do no more in his actual sealing to Believers than he doth when the Sacrament is rightly applyed to Hypocrites, then he actually sealeth to Hypocrites: but God doth no more in his actual sealing to Believers, than he doth when the Sacrament is rightly administred to Hypocrites. The Minor is proved by the enumeration of the several acts. 1. God maketh a promise; 2. He commandeth Ministers to publish it; 3. He hath instituted the Sacraments as mutually engaging Signs or Seals; 4 He commands Ministers to deliver or apply them to those that profess their consent and desi…e to enter or renew the Covenant. Th…se two last I confess I have borrowed, and that from Mr. Baxter pag. 223. of his Inf…nt B…ptism, and whether they make for him or against him, to prove or disprove their right which he here calls Hypocrites, and distinguishes from Believers, I leave to the censure of the Intelligent Reader.
ANSWER.
1. I mean in that Argument, that as to the natural extrinsick action, commanded or performed, God doth no more: But yet God hath before the sealing in the foregoing promise done so much more, as that he is actually thereby (as it were) obliged to the performers of the condition, when he is not so to others. For while it is but conditional, it is not actual: for the act is suspended on the condition.
2. Is not Mr. Blake able to distinguish, between an Hypocrite and a Professor of another sort of faith? I confess we may give the Seals to Hypocrites; for they profess that saving faith which they have not: but it doth not follow that therefore we may give them to men that never so much as professed it, but only professed another kind of faith. And why will an ingenuous sober Brother insinuate that these are they whom I call Hypocrites, who never do so much as profess to be sincere Christians? And now I am as content as Mr. Blake that the Intelligent Reader do pass his censure upon my supposed Contradictions, & Mr. Blake's Arguments.
When I had mentioned the uncertainty, and the certain vanity of the contrary opinion, I thought meet to examine the Arguments that are brought for it, before I come to the last of my own: I have yet some more Arguments to answer from other hands, which I shall adjoyn before I conclude my own: and some of the same I find scattered up and down also in Mr. Blakes.
ARGUMENT. XVIII.
The Jews Children were circumcised upon the Title of a Dogmatical faith, or of some faith short of Justifying: therefore so may we and ours be baptized: for Circumcision extended no futher then Baptism.