Right to Sacraments, Disputation 2 (3 of 4)

Right to Sacraments · Disputation 2 (3 of 4)

p. 107To proceed, the Church of Philippi are called Saints; True, but what Saints? such on whom Paul was [confident that he which had begun a good work in them, would perform it till the day of Jesus Christ: to whom it was given on behalf of Christ not only to believe but to suffer for his sake: who alwaies obeyed in presence & absence: for God wrought in them to will and to do: they only communicated to Paul in giving & receiving: and they were such as bad cause alway to rejoyce, Phil. 1.6, 29. and 2.12, 13. and 4.15, 4.

The Church of the Colossians are called Saints: But what Saints? such as [had faith in Christ Jesus, and love to all Saints, and had hope laid up for them in heaven, who were made meet to be partakers of the Inheritance of the Saints in Light, being delivered from the power of darkness, and translated into the Kingdom p. 108of his dear Son (that is the Church) in whom they had redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, being reconciled by the body of his flesh through death to be presented holy, and unblameable, and unreprovable in his sight, if they continued in the faith, grounded and setled, and were not moved away from the hope of the Gospel, whose ardor and stedfastness of faith in Christ, Paul beheld in the Spirit with joy: who were buried with Christ in baptism, and risen with him through faith; and being before dead, were quickened with him, and had the forgiveness of all trespasses, having put off the body of the sins of the flesh; who were dead, and their life was hid with Christ in God, and who shall appear with Christ in Glory when he appeareth.] Col. 1. and 2. and 3.

If it shall be replyed, that Paul spake all this of them in the Judgement of Charity, or denominated the whole from the better part, and the Profession of the rest; I say even so also it is that he calleth them all Saints: the denomination is on the same ground as the description is. I cannot imagine what reasonable evasion can be made from this evidence.

The Thessalonians are consequentially called Saints, in being called a Church of Christ. And what a Church? and what Saints? such as [had the work of Faith, Labour of Love, and patience of Hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, whose Election Paul knew, who turned to God from Idols, to serve the true and living God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, who delivered them from the wrath to come, & they received the word as the word of God, which effectually worked in them that believed, who followed the Churches in suffering; who were Pauls joy and glory in the presence of Christ at his coming, whose faith and Charity was so reported to Paul, that he tells them be liveth, if they stand fast: for God had not appointed them to wrath, but to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ.] 1 Thess. 1 & 2. & 3. & 5. They were such Saints whom Christ would come at last to be glorified in, and such Believers in whom he will then be admired, even because the Gospel was believed among them.] (therefore say not, To believe the Gospel is a common thing, short of saving Faith.) 2 Thess. 1. We see then what the Church and Saints at Thessalonica was.

The Hebrews (to whom the Apostle wrote) are called Saints, Heb. 13.24. And he doth not groundlesly call them Saints; p. 109for they were such as [were made a gazing-stock by reproaches & afflictions, and became companions of them that were so used, & took joyfully the spoiling of their goods, knowing in themselves that they have in heaven a better and more enduring substance.] vid. ult. Heb. 10.33, 34, 35. They were such indeed as he saw cause to exhort to perseverance, and warn of the danger of Apostacie (and the best have need of that) But yet [though he so spake, he was perswaded better things of them, and such as accompany salvation.] and he gives his reason of it, Heb. 6.9, 10, 11.

And having said so much of the several Churches under the name of Saints, I shall proceed and shew you what they are as Churches, though this will after fall in, in another Argument, because it will be fittes… for all to lie together, and then I shall refer you hither, when this afterward falls in. You may see by what is said, what Churches all these were that are already mentioned; and consequently what a Church is in Scripture-sense; not a society of men professing a faith short of justifying; but a society of men professing true saving faith; yea, so far professing it, as to induce the Apostles to denominate them such, as supposing them such indeed: For as they knew some were such, so did they not know the contrary by any particulars, except those whom they commanded them to cast out, as none of them.

The Apostle Peter writes to the scattered Jews that professed Christianity: And what kind of Christians or Believers did he take them for? Why, for such as were [Elect according to the fore-knowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto Obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.] And Mr. Blake cannot say that this was a common Election, or common Sanctification, and Obedience, and Sprinkling of Christs blood: For it is added, that [God of his abundant mercy had begotten them again to a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an Inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for them, and that they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last times, wherein they greatly re…oyced, suffering the trial of their precious faith: and [having not seen Christ loved him, and believeing in him rejoyced with joy p. 110unspeakable and full of glory, receiving the end of their faith, the salvation of their souls.] If all these people had not, or professed and seemed not to have a saving faith, I know not what words can express a saving faith, nor what persons have such a thing.

The like testimonies the Apostle John gives of them, as may quickly be seen.

But all the doubt is, Whether the seven reproved Churches in Rev. 2. and 3. were such or not? To which I say, 1. All of them professed the foresaid saving Faith. 2. There is no sin charged on them that was visible and inconsistent with true saving Faith. 1. For the Church of Ephesus, we heard what they were esteemed by Paul a little before; and here their grace is mentioned; and the faults expressed are consistent with true grace. 2. The same I say of the Churches of Pergamus and Thyatyra. And for the Nicolaitans and other Hereticks, whom they are blamed for suffering (as the former is commended for hating them) they are such as were to be cut off from the Church; and while they were in it were not of it: Nor are they any where called Believers, Saints, Disciples, or Church-members.

But it is the Church of Sardis that Mr. Blake takes special notice of. And it is said of her indeed, that she had a Name to live and was dead. But, 1. in that they had a name to live, it seems it was a living faith which they Professed, and not only one short of it. 2. Their death was not a death in reigning sin, such as is the death of the unsanctified: But a declining condition, comparatively called death, as the children of God do oft complain of deadness. And therefore its next said, [Be watchful and strengthen the things that remain, that are ready to dye.] And its exprest, that their deadness was in that their works were not found perfect before God; that is, that many or most of them had defiled their garments, (with some Heresie or vice) which the rest had not done. 3. How far this was notorious to others, is of further enquiry. 4. If they had gone on so far, as by obstinate impenitency after admonition to shew themselves void of saving faith, they had been unchurched, as appeareth by the threatning.

The Church of Philadelphia is so far commended, as that the case is put out of doubt. And the Church of Laodicea, though p. 111discommended, hath nothing visible charged upon it inconsistent with sincerity; and the luke-warmness which is charged on them, they are threatned to be spewed out for, and so to be unchurched. And thus we see what a Church was, and what Saints were, and what Believers and Disciples were supposed to be by the Apostles, and what is the signification of these words in Scripture: for they are all of the same extent.

Mr. Blake saith [He is a believer in Scripture, Of the Covenant, pag. 205.206.that is a visible Professor, that puts himself in the number of those that expect salvation by Jesus Christ.] Answ. 1. A Professor of what? Of true saving faith. 2. Not that puts himself among them locally only, for so may an Infidel; but that becomes one of them as far as to a Profession of it. And if they expect salvation by Christ, either they profess that faith which salvation is annexed to, or else they give God the lye, and contradict both Scripture and themselves even in their very Profession: As if they should say, [I look to be saved by Christ, but I will not take him for my Saviour, nor be saved from sin by him] And sure such a Profession makes no m…n a Saint, Believer or Church-member.

Thus much I have said to prove that all the Baptized are accounted Saints; and therefore Professed a saving Sanctity.

The second Title which I mentioned follows, (of which I shall be more brief.) All the Baptized are accounted to be dead and risen with Christ, even dead to sin, and risen to newness of life; therefore they all profess a saving faith. The proof of this is full in the two Texts already cited, Rom. 6. and Col. 2.11, 12.

Rom. 6.33 &c. [How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by Baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of Life. For if we have been planted together into the likeness of his Death, we shall be also in the likeness of his Resurrection. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that hence forth we should not serve sin; for he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. — Likewise, reckon ye p. 112also your selves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Iesus Christ our Lord.

Here is a full Report of the use of Baptism and the Profession of all that are Baptized, and the state that they are supposed to be in: so that I cannot speak it plainlier than the words themselves do. Calv. on the Text saith, [Extra Controversiam est induere nos Christum in Baptismo, & hâc lege nos baptizari, ut unum cum ipso simus. — Imò docet hanc mortis societatem praecipuè in Baptismo spectandam esse. Neque enim ablutio sola illic, sed mortificatio quoque & veteris hominis interitus proponitur: Vnde palàm fit, ex quo recipimur in Christi gratiam, mortis ejus efficaciam statim emergere. Porro quid valeat hae… cum morte Christi societas, continuo sequitur; — ut scilicet nobis emortui si amus novi homines: Nam à mortis societate transitum merito facit ad vitae participationem: quia haec duo inter se individuo nexu cohaerent, veterem hominem Christi morte aboleri, ut ejus resurrectio justitiam instauret, nosque efficiat novas creaturas. — Haec autem est Doctrina; Quod Mors Christi efficax est ad nequitiam carnis nostrae extinguendam ac prostigandam: Resurrectio vero ad suscitandam melioris naturae novitatem: quódque per Baptismum in istius gratiae participationem cooptamur. — In summa; Qualis sit Baptismi ritè suscepti veritas docet.

So Col. 2.11, 12. which I shall not stay to recite, because it is to the same purpose and before cited.

The third Title mentioned in the Argument, is this: All that are Baptized have Professedly put on Christ: therefore they have professed saving Faith. The Antecedent is expressed, Gal. 3.27. [For as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.] The Consequence is proved, in that, to put on Christ heartily, is, to be made true partakers of him, and living members of him: therefore to Profess this is inseparable from the Profession of saving Faith; yea, by that faith is he truly put on. Putting on Christ is the same with [Putting on the New man, which after God is created in Righteousness and true holiness, being renewed in the spirit of our minds Ephes. 4.20, 21, 22, 23, 24. Col. 3.10. It is putting on the New man which is renewed in knowledge according to the Image of him that created him.] So that this is no common work, if any be proper to the saved. And putting on the Lord Iesus Christ, is put for the state of Sanctity, p. 113in opposition to a fleshly Life, Rom. 13.13, 14. saith Calvin on this Text [Induere Christum hic significat virtute Spiritus ejus undique nos muniri, qua idonei ad omnes Sanctitatis partes reddamur: sic enim instauratur in nobis imago Dei quae unicum est animae ornamentum. Respicit enim Paulus ad vocationis nostrae sinem, quia Deus nos adoptans, in corpus unigeniti silii sui inserit, & quidem hac lege, ut nos abdicantes priore vita, siamus in ipso novi homines. Quare etiam alibi fideles dicit Christum in…uere in baptismum, Gal. 3.27.] and upon Galat. 3.27. he saith [Quum dicit, Christum induisse, intelligit Christo sic esse insitos, ut coram Deo nomen ac personam Christi gerant, ac in ipso magis quàm in seipsis censeantur.] And he comes to the objection, How all that are baptized can be said to put on Christ, when Baptism is not effectual with all? And he answereth in sum, That to Hypocrites it is uneffectual, qui nudis signis superbiunt. But then he saith, that the Apostle speaking of these [non respicit Dei institutionem, sed impiorum corruptelam. (But doubtless it is Gods institution that we must look to for direction in our administration.) Quum autem fideles alloquitur, qui rite utuntur, illa tunc conjungit cum sua veritate, quam figurant. Quare? neque enim fallacem Pompam ostentat in Sacramentis, sed quae externa Ceremonia figurat, exhibit simul reipsa. Hinc sit, ut veritas, secundum Dei institutum, conjuncta sit cum signis.] To the same purpose say other Protestants.

The next Title mentioned in the Argument was, Sons of God. All that are Baptized are the visible or esteemed Sons of God by faith in Christ: therefore they all profess that justifying faith to which the real or special Son-ship is promised.

The Antecedent is experssed in Gal. 3.16, 17. [For ye are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus;] which he proveth in the next words, [For as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.] What Sons of God are in Scripture sense, may be seen Joh. 1.12. Rom 8.14, 19. Phil. 2.15. 1 Joh. 3.1, 2. Gal. 4 1, 2, 5, 7. and Rom. 8.17. [If sons, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ] was a good consequence in Pauls judgement. [In this (saith John) the children of God are manifest from the children of the devil: whosoever doth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother, 1 John 3.10. p. 114therefore Mr Blake's Saints are not the children of God, but of the Devil. See also John 11.52. Rom. 8, 16.21.

But Mr. Blake objecteth Rom 9.4. To them pertained the Adoption] and Gomarus his Comment. Answ. 1. Gomarus saith not, that any were in either sense sons of God, without a Profession of saving Faith. 2. It was not after their unchurching for unbelief, that the Adoption is said to pertain to them, but before: and then let Mr. Blake prove if he can, that any Israelites were adopted without profession of that Faith which was then saving. I doubt not to prove the contrary anon. And 3. If he could prove that such there were among the Israelites, yet he will never prove that they are called Sons though the Nation were, because the denomination was principally from the true Sons, and next from the professed ones, but never from or to them that professed only a common faith. None are visibly Sons, that be not visibly true Believers.

The next Title mentioned in the Argument is [Abraham's Seed] All that are baptized, are called Abrahams Seed. Gal. 3.17, 18, 19. therefore they all profess a justifying Faith. The Consequence is proved, in that none are Abraham's Seed in Scripture Gospel sense, but those cordially that are true Believers, and those appearingly that profess true Faith. This is proved Rom. 9.4, 6, 7, 8. Rom. 4.11. [that he might be the Father of all them that believe, that Righteousness might be imputed to them also.] This therefore is a justifying faith, and the priviledge of the Justified that is here mentioned. Its added ver. 12, 13. [And the Father of Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision, but also walk in the steps of the faith of our Father Abraham yet uncircmucised: for the promise that he should be heir of the world was not to Abraham or his seed by the law, but by the righteousness of faith. —Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace, to the end the prom…se might be sure to all the seed — even to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, the Father of us all.]

So Gal. 3.6.7, 8, 9. [Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness: Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham: and the Scripture fore-seeing that God would justifie th… heathen by faith preached before the Gospel to Abraham: in thee shall all N…tions be p. 115blessed. So then, they which be of Faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.] So ver. 14.16. [That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the Promise of the Spirit through faith. Now to Abraham and his seed were the Promises made: he saith not, and to seeds, as of many, but as of one; And to thy seed, which is Christ: and so to those that are in him.

It is hence most undeniable, That all Abrahams true Seed are Justified and have a Justifying faith; and all his Professing seed do Profess this faith.

The next Title mentioned in the Argument is, [Heirs according to the Promise.] All the Baptized were Heirs according to the Promise: None that Profess not a Justifying faith are Heirs according to the Promise (either really or appearingly;) therefore none that Profess not a Justifying faith (or their children) should be baptized.

The Major is expressed in Gal. 3.17, 18, 19.

The Minor (of which is all the doubt) is proved from Rom. 8 17. where there is an express concatenation of [children, heirs of God, co-heirs with Christ, that suffering with him shall be glorified with him] Gal. 4.1, 6, 7. The heir is Lord of all, and a Son, & therefore hath the spirit of the Son, by which they cry Abba Father.

So Tit. 3.5, 6, 7. [According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of Regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us, &c. that being justified by his Grace, we should he made heirs according to the hope of eternal Life.] The heirs then are Regenerate, Justified, and have the hope of eternal Life. So Eph. 3.6. The Gentiles being made fellow-heirs, and of the same body, are partakers of the Promise in Christ by the Gospel, even the unsearchable riches of Christ.

Heb. 6.17. The heirs of Promise have their salvation confirmed by Gods Oath. And Heb. 1.14. They are all called the Heirs of salvation. And Heb. 11.6, 9. It is true Justified Believers that have that Title. And Jam. 25. [they are called Heirs of the Promised Kingdoms.] And 1 Pet. 3.7. they are called [Co-heirs of the same Grace of Life.] So that to be Heirs in the first and proper notion. is to be Sons that have Title to the Inheritance of Glory: and therefore to be Heirs in the second Analogical notion, (for I will p. 116not yet anger Mr. Blake with the term Equivocal) is to be such as seem such, by Profession of that faith which hath the promise of that Glory: But the Professors of any other faith are none of them.

The last Title that I mentioned in the Argument was [Justified] Paul calleth all the Baptized Church of Corinth Justified: None that profess not a Justifying faith are called Justified; therefore none such should be Baptized.

The Major I proved to Mr. Blake out of 1 Cor. 6.11. [Ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.] Mr. Blake doth not at all deny the Major or the sense of the Text alledged to prove it. But darkly in generals Intimateth a denial of the Minor, silently passing over that particular Title [Justified,] as if he durst not be seen to take notice of it. I confess, its sad that good men should be so unfaithfull to the Truth, which is so precious and is not their own, and which they should do nothing against, but all they can for it. But in general he saith, pag. 152. Of Sacrament, [Other phrases are there brought, or Titles as proper to the Regenerate, which are well known in Scripture, to be applyed to such as have Apostatized, and are brought by Arminians to prove falling away, and are censured by their Adversaries.] Answ. Those other Titles which I proved to be given to the generality of the Baptized, were no other than what we ascribe to them, [to be Heirs, and Justified, quickened and have all trespasses forgiven them, and to be saved.] And if indeed these Titles be so promiscuously used, it will be harder to understand Scripture, than Interpreters have hitherto thought. Why did not Mr. Blake shew but one Text (for this one in hand) where any are said to be Justified upon a faith short of Justifying? I think he was loath to name this Title, lest he should have seemed to contradict himself in the terms, or be put to the searching out for a distinction of Justification, which we have not yet heard of▪ that he may tell us in what sense the unregenerate are Justified. If he should say, it is a conditional Justification, so Infidels are justified without any faith at all: but that is no Justification, because not actual. Mr. Hudsons words and Ames (which he annexeth) mention not Justification, p. 117much less that any not Professing Justifying faith are Justified.

And here I must needs again say, I know no man that hath made Scripture terms so Equivoc…l as Mr. Blake hath done, while he pretendeth to abhor it. Two senses of the word [sanctified, Believers, Disciples, &c.] we yield him, viz. as they signifie those that are such in Heart, and those that Profess to be such in heart. But these will not serve his turn, but he must moreover have a third sort, even such as only Profess another faith short of Justifying? yea and a faith which is specificially distinct from Justifying faith, yea and that by a Physical specification (if he will be understood, for he falls upon me for making but a Gradual difference, who yet ever affirmed a Moral Specifick difference.) So that we have not onelyonly many sorts of Sanctification, Faith, &c. but also of Justification too. Whether we shall have as many Salvations, and as many Heavens or not, in his sense, I yet find him not express.

But I would know why he doth so usually say that [a faith short of justifying entitleth to B…tism: and Disciples, Saints, &c. are titles that belong to more then the justified. If indeed he take his own short faith to be really justifying, and his own new made Saints to be really justified; Doth not his own ordinary appropriating the Titles of Regenerate and justified to (I know not how to call them; for he hath left me no one proper name for them that I can remember,) — to those that are the Heirs of Glory, shew plainly that in the primary signification they speak only of such, even in h…s own apprehension: and that therefore the words simply expressed signifie no other; bare Professors of justifying faith being but seemingly, Analogically, secundum quid, — such; and his Professors of another kind of faith, being not such in either sense.

Having gone thus far about Titles, let me add another, because I find Mr. Blake so oft apply it to the — justified (I shall crave leave to use that term as proper to them, or else I confess I shall be at some loss for a name for them because he hath taken them all out of my hand that I can think off.) And this is the Title [Regenerate] Christ hath instituted no Baptism, but what is to be a sign of present Regeneration (at least to men at age.) But to men that Profess not a justifying faith it cannot p. 118be adminstired as a sign of present Regeneration: therefore he hath Instituted no Baptism to be administred to such.

The Major I have proved already in the first Argument. And its plain in Joh. 3.5. Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.] and so in Tit. ….5. Where it is called the Laver of Regeneration.] In both which though I am of their mind that think that the sign is put for the thing signified; yet it may thence plainly appear what is the thing signified; even Regeneration, or the new birth! yea so commonly was this acknowledged by all the Church of Christ that there's nothing more common in the writings of the Fathers, than to take the terms Regenerate, Illuminate &c. and B…ptized] as signifying the same thing or at least spoken of the same person: which occasioned one of our late Antiquaries so stifly to plead that Regeneration in Scripture signifieth meer Baptism, and that all the Baptized are Regenerate.

I grant that it oft falls out that Baptism being misapplyed sealeth not Regeneration at present, and that the sam… person may afterward be Regenerate, and his remembred Baptism may then be of use to him for the confirmation of his faith. But this is not the Institutors commanded use of it, to be so administred at first, if the party profess not saving Faith, though this review of it is a Duty, where it was so abused at first (of which none afterward.)

The Minor I shall take for granted, while Regeneration stands in Scripture so connexed to salvation; I know no Regenerate ones but the justified, or those that profess to have a justifying faith: Nor hath he proved any more.

Argum. 11. All that are meet subjects for Baptism, are (after their Baptism, without any further inward qualification, at least without another species of faith) meet subjects for the Lords Supper (having natural capacity by age) But no one that professeth only a faith short of justifying is meet to receive the Lords Supper, therefore no such a one is a meet subject for Baptism.

Or thus: Those at age whom we may baptize, we may also admit to the Lords Supper (without any other species of faith) But the Professors of a meer common faith short of justifying, p. 119we may not admit to the Lords Supper, Ergo, &c.

The duty of a particular examination before the Lords Supper is nothing to our purpose, because 1. that makes a man fitter than he was, but the want of it is not in the cognizance of the Minister alwaies, nor will not justifie our refusal of a godly man excepting some apparent gross evils. 2. And it is the necessity of another faith and state that we are enquiring after, which will not be proved by the necessity of an actual examination or excitation of our present grace.

The Major Mr. Blake will easily grant me; and if any other deny it, I prove it thus. 1. It is the same Covenant that both Sacraments Seal; one for initiation, the other for confirmation and growth in grace: therefore the same faith that qualifieth for the one, doth sufficiently qualifie for the other. For the same covenant hath the some condition.

2. They are the same heresies that are conferred in baptism and the Lords Supper to the worthy Receiver. Therefore the same qualification (for kind) is necessary for the reception. The Antecedent is commonly granted. Baptism uniteth to Christ and giveth us himself first, and with himself the pardon of all past sins, &c. The Lords Supper by confirmation giveth us the same things: It is the giving of Christ himself, who faith by his Minister, take, eat, dr…nk; offering himself to us under the signs, and commanding us to take himself by faith, as we take the signs by the outward parts. He giveth us the pardon of sin, sealed, as procured by his body broken, and blood shed.

3. A member of Christs Church, against whom no Accusation must be brought from some contradiction of his first profession, must be admitted to the Lords Supper: but the new baptized may be ordinarily such (at age); therefore if he can but say, I am a baptized person, he hath a sufficient principal title to Baptism coram ecclesia (I mean such as we must admit) though some actual preparation be necessary) unless he be proved to have disabled his claim on that account either by nulling and reversing that profession, or by giving just cause of questioning it.

4. The Church hath ever from the Apostles daies till now, without question, admitted the new baptized, at age, to the p. 120Lords Supper, without requiring any new species of faith to entitle them to it. I take the Major therefore as past denial.

All the controversie between Mr. Blake and me is like to be about the Minor, whether the profession of his common faith short of justifying, make people fit for, or capable of the Lords supper. 1. No man should be admitted to the signal profession of Receiving Christ as he is offered, who will not orally profess to receive him as he is offered. But all that are admitted to the Lords supper, are admitted to the signal profession of receiving Christ as he is offered. Therefore no man that will not orally so profess to receive Christ should be admitted to the Lords Supper. The Major is plain, because 1. Else we cannot know who is fit, if he will not make profession of it. 2. His refusal shews that he either understandeth not what he doth in the Sacrament, or is wilfully uncapable, by infidelity, or impenitency. 3. The Minor is evident in the nature of the Sacrament. The offer of the bread and wine with the command, Tade, eat, drink, is signally the o…fer of the Lord Jesus himself, with a command to take him. He that pu…s forth his hand to take the bread, professeth thereby to Accept of Christ as offered. If it be said, that Mr. Blakes professor of a lower sort of faith, doth profess to take Christ as offered, I say, No: This proposition I here suppose as evident in it self, that no man but the sound Believer doth take Christ as offered, no not as Christ. He is offered as a Saviour from the Guilt and Reign of sin; and so Mr. Blakes professor doth not so much as profess to accept him. For I hope we are agreed, that so to accept him heartily is saving faith. 2. No man should be admitted to receive a sealed pardon of sin (or have it delivered to him) that doth not profess that faith which is of necessity to make him capable of a sealed pardon: but he that only professeth a faith short of justifying, professeth not that faith which is of necessity to make him capable of a sealed pardon. Therefore he is not to be admitted to the Lords supper. It is a present sealed pardon that they profess there to receive by the very actual receiving: God presently offereth; and they presently profess to accept it signally, and therefore must do so verbally.

3. No man is to be admitted to the Lords supper that professeth p. 121not true Repentance for sin. But Mr. Blake's Professor doth not so: for that is inseparable from saving faith. Therefore Mr. Blake must deny the Major, or say nothing that I can imagine, but what is to no purpose. And if he do deny it,

1. I would desire him once to give us a just Description of that Repentance, short of saving, which he will be satisfied with the Profession of, in his Communicants. 2. I must confess as much as I am against separation, I never intend to have communion with Mr. Blakes Congregation, if they profess not saving Repentance and faith. And if he exact not such a Profession, I say still he makes soul work in the Church. And when such soul work shall be voluntarily maintained, and the Word of God abused for the defilement of the Church, and Ordinances of God, it is a greater scandal to the weak, and to the Schismaticks, and a greater reproach to the Church, and sadder case to considerate men, than the too common pollutions of others, which are meerly through negligence, but not justified and defended. And if Mr. Blake be angry at my speaking these things, I cannot help it. I am bound to tell him of it as a faithful Brother, that I doubt not but God is angry at his Doctrine, and the great wrong that he doth the Church of God, while he is so angry at his Brother for resisting it. For my part, I would not have done his work, no nor justified it as some of his neer Learned Friends have done, for more than I will speak of. Its like he will hardly exact a Profession of saving Repentance from the lapsed for their Restoration to the communion of the Church, if he will not do it of the Church themselves in their Sacramental communion.

Argum. 4. Furthermore they that will not profess true Love to Christ as a Redeemer, are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper. But no man can Profess true Love that will not Profess true faith: Ergo, &c.

The Major is proved, in that it is a Sacrament of communion in Love: We receive the highest expressions of Christs love, and are to receive them with gratitude, which hath alwaies love in it.

Argum. 5. They that profess not true Pope of Christs coming in Glory are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper. But p. 122none can do that but the Professors of a saving faith. Therefore the Major is proved, because it is the very end and use of the Sacrament to exercise Hope of Christs coming [Do this in remembrance of me till I come] which Implyeth Expectation, or Hope.

Argum. 6. No man is to be admitted to the Lords Supper that Professeth not a sincere love to the Saints as Saints: But so can none do that Profess not a saving faith (without contradicting himself) Ergo.

The Major is proved in that the very business of that Church there, next their communion with Christ, is to have communion with the Saints in Love: and if they be at variance but with one, they must leave their gift at the Altar, and go first and be reconciled to their Brother, and then come and offer their gift. But Mr. Blake is so far from excluding the ungodly, that he would not have us so much as disswade them from coming. Pag. 196. he saith to that [1. It is as I suppose, without all Scripture Precedent to warn men upon account of want of a new life by the Spirit, wholly to keep off from this or any other Ordinances of Christ — that we should warn men upon this account, upon this very ground, to hold off from all address to Ordinances, I have not learnt.] Answ. That we should disswade them to come till they have that Faith and Repentance and Love to the Brethren which is the fruit of a new life, I have proved, and more have done it than you will ever well answer. And it will not follow, as you pretend, that then none must come that have not the certainty of their sincerity in the Faith, as I shall further shew when I come purposely to your Objections. And where you talk of unregenerate mens being incapable of examining themselves, its a great mistake; else no wicked man could despair, if he be not able to find himself to be wicked; And then it would be a sufficient Evidence of Grace for a man to find himself graceless, which is a contradiction.

And its an unhappy confusion that Mr. Blake is guilty of almost all along, while he pleadeth against the Interest of the Regenerate only in the Sacraments, that he confoundeth most commonly the Professors of Justifying Faith and holiness, with his Professors of a faith short of Justifying; and thus in his p. 123arguing against Mr. Hooker and Galaspie, and others, carrieth on the matter in the dark; as if these were all one, or the arguments will serve for the one that will serve for the other; which is meerly to lose his own and his Readers labour, or leave him deceived, which is worse: How many leaves of that volumn, and his former of the covenants, are guilty of this dark misleading work?

I could willingly here answer his Arguments for unregenerate mens right to this Sacrament; but 1. I shall meet with much more about their pretended right to baptism anon, and the answer of those will serve for both. 2. And he hath so mixt the two Cases (of Professors of saving faith and of not saving) together, that if I deal with him on the later, he may say, he speaks of the former.

The first Argument of Galaspies 201, which he answereth,Mr. Galaspi… 's Arguments defended against Mr. Blakes answ. Argum. 1. is from [the Nature of Sacraments, which are to signifie that we have already Faith in Christ, Remission of sin by him, and Union with him] The sense of the Argument is, That seeing Sacraments (according to Christs institution) are confirming signs, presupposing the thing signified both on our part and on Gods; therefore none should use them that have not first the thing signified by them (at least those at age) To this Master Blake answereth, This to me is as strange as new, that Sacramental signs declare & shew that we have Faith & remission of sins. The Sacrament now in question is a sign of the body & blood of Christ, in whom by faith remission of sins may be obtained I know; but that it is a sign either that we do believe, or that we have remission of sin otherwise than upon believing (to which this engages, but not presupposes) I know not, Repl. Though I undertake not to defend all the Arguments that other men use in this Case; yet this doth so much concern the cause of baptism which I am now debating, that I shall give you this reply to it: 1. The sacramental Actions are signs as well as the substance of bread and wine. The Offer with Take, eat, signifieth the offer of Christ to us, to be received and applyed: the Taking, and Eating, and Drinking signifieth our Acceptance, & Application of him. With himself is offered the pardon of sin, and given to all that Accept him, which by Taking, Eating and Drinking we profess to p. 124do. It is my duty to tell you, that it is sad that a Treatise of Sacraments should profess not to know, that our believing and Remission is here signified. Its pity but this had been known before you had written of them, at least Controversally. What Divines are there that deny the Sacraments to be mutual signs and seals, signifying and sealing our part as well as Gods? and how ill do you to wrong the Church of God by seeking to make men believe that these things are new and strange? If it be so to you, its pity that it is so: But sure you have seen Mr. Gatakers Books against Doct. Word and Davenant wherein you have multitudes of sentences recited of our Protestant Divines, that affirm this which you call new. It is indeed their most common doctrine, that the Sacrament doth pre-suppose Remission of sin, and our faith, and that they are instituted to signifie these as in being; (though through infancy or error some may not have some benefits of them till after,) it is the common Protestant Doctrine, that Sacraments do solemnize and publikely own and confirm the mutual Covenant already entered in heart; as a King is crowned, a Souldier listed, a Man and Woman married, after professed consent: so that the sign is Causal as to the Consummation and Delivery (as a Key, a Twig and Turff in giving possession), but consequential to the Contract as privately made, and the Right given thereby: So that the soul is supposed to consent to have Christ as offered first (which is saving faith) and then by receiving him Sacramentally delivered to make publike profession of that consent, and publikely to receive his sealed Remission. Mr. Corbet (cited by you) might well say, that primarily the Sacrament is Gods Seal; but did he say that it is only his, and not secondarily ours? And in the next words, you do in effect own part of the doctrine your self, which you have thus wondered at as new and strange, saying [I confess it is a symbole of our Profession of Faith; but this is not the Faith spoken to, neither is Remission of sins annext unto it.] Answ. If you put (Profession) for the thing professed, you speak obscurely, when you might have spoken plainly: But if you mean as you speak, (taking Profession properly) then 1. You yield that the Sacarment is our symbole, and so declareth or signifieth our Action as well as Gods. 2. And it is p. 125not only a sign of our Profession, but a Professing sign and therefore a sign of the thing professed: For the external sign is to declare the Internal acts of the mind, which without signs others cannot know: And therefore the Actions of Taking, Eating, Drinking, do signifie the same Internal Acts which a verbal Profession doth signifie. As therefore the Words, and outward Actions are two distinct signs of the same Internal Acts, so are they two wayes of Profession. My signal Actions do not signifie my words, (which are plainer signs themselves, and therefore need not darker to express them) but they both express my mind: so that they are not only Symbols of our Profession, as you speak, but Professing Symbols. 3. And if so, then they must be signs and Professions of those Internal Acts which correspond with them; which is the Inward Taking Christ, and Eating his Flesh, and Drinking his Blood by Faith, which (no doubt) are the proper acts of saving faith. 4. And therfore this is the faith spoken of, and Remission of sins is annext unto it, (which you deny) though it seems you will speak of the Profession of a common faith, to which Remission is not annext.

The second Argument was from some Scriptures,Galaspie's Argum. 2. defended. proving that the Sacrament necessarily supposeth Conversion and saith, and therefore is not to work it. To this Mr. Blake Answers; 1. By referring to what he hath said in another book about some of these Texts; and thither I shall follow him: 1. About Mark. 16.16. he speaks, Treat. of Cov. pag. 243. Because he confesseth that these Texts are spoken of Baptism (and so are more to my principal end, and will hold as to the Lords Supper only:) I shall here peruse his Answers, having used the same Texts my self before. But (now I peruse the place) I find that his words of Mark 16.16. are those that I have already answered in my former Reply to him: and you may peruse his Rejoinder, if worth the labor. The same I say of his words on Act. 8.36, 37. on Act. 2.…8. in pag. 392. I find nothing to our purpose worth a Reply; but his Contest with Mr. Tombes, let Mr. I — regard. To Act. 2 41. he now answers, [It speaks no more than ready Acceptation of the tender of the Gospel; and whether this necessarily imply saving faith, let Ezek. 33.31. Mat 13.20, 21. Gal. 4.15. be consulted.] To which I reply, 1. If by [the tender of the Gospel] p. 126you mean [the Gospel tendred], then either it is [the Gospel as the Gospel], declaring the work of Redemption, and offering us a Saviour to deliver us from sin and wrath: and this no unregenerate man did ever gladly or heartily …ccept. Or else it is [the Gospel as a Novel doctrine; or only …hat part of it which offereth them pardon without the other part which offereth salvation from sin it self. And this is mentioned in the Texts (or some of them) that you refer us to: But that this is not meant in the Text, Act. 2.41. is plain; because it was the doctrine of Redemption, Faith and Repentance which they gladly received, and in prosecution of it sold all, and lived in the Communion of Saints in the Praises of God. 2. Or else by [the tender of the Gospel] you mean, that which the Gospel tendereth: And that is, Christ as Christ with his full salvation, which no unregenerate man doth heartily Accept though pardon alone they would willingly have: but thats not the tender of the Gospel. If [the glad Acceptation of the tender of the Gospel] that is, of Christ as Christ, and his full salvation, be not justifying or saving Faith, I despair of ever knowing what it is: and if this Acceptation or Faith be common, all's common. I still believe that Justifying faith [is the Assent to the Truth of the Gospel, and hearty Acceptance of Christ as he is there offered, or of Christ as Christ]

And having distinguished of the Object, so must we of the Act. Its one thing to accept indeed by hearty Consent, and another thing to accept ore tenus, or to say I accept it. The former only the Godly have, as to [Christ as Christ]: the Unregenerate may ore tenus, verbally Accept Christ as Christ, and heartily be willing to have pardon by him, and submit to some common Reformation, least they should miss of that pardon: but Christ as Christ, they will not accept.

Now to the Texts: And its hard that you should alledge Ezek. 33.31. for [ready Accepting the tender of the Gospel,] when the Text saith plainly, that their hearts went after their coveteousness, and they hear the word and would not do it, though they took pleasure to hear the Prophet, as a minstrel to tickle their ears and not as a Minister to save them from sin: when as these in Acts 2. sold all and lived in Community with the Saints. Those Mat. 13.20, 21. received the external Message, and Christ himself p. 127ore tenus, by verbal Acceptance, and Internally they would have had Christ ad hoc for their own ends, as a subject or servant to their worldly Interests; but they never received Christ as Christ, to save them from the world, and self, and sin; for these were still preferred before him; nor did they ever accept of God as their God, that is, their chief good and chief Lord. I am bold therefore (by your Patience) to say, that as to the Acceptance of Christ as Christ, or God as their God, or the Holy Ghost as their Sanctifier, they cannot be said to have done it, but equivocally: and no otherwise did they receive the tender of the Gospel. As for the Galathians, chap. 4.15. 1. All were not in Love with Paul on the same account: and all love to the Preacher signifieth not an Acceptance of the tender of the Gospel. 2. And you cannot prove but that these Galathians did it sincerely, and were sincere when this was spoken, for all their yielding so far to the temptation of false Teachers. (Of which I have spoken before.) Of Acts 10.47. hereafter.

The sense of the third Argument, Galaspie's Argum. 3. defended.is, that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper giveth us New food, viz. the Flesh and Blood of Christ. Therefore it supposeth the new Birth and Life.]

To this Mr. Blake saith [1. Metaphors are ill Materials, to make up into Syllogisms.] Repl. 1. They are such as Christ used John 6. and frequently in Reasoning; and therefore I am resolved to believe they are good Materials. 2. We must use Metaphors, or no words in some of the greatest Points in Divinity (about God) 3. We cannot easily find fitter terms here then [New B…rth, Life and Food.] And if you had rather have many words then one, change [Food into special means of continuing or encreasing our New Life.] But this is a long term for a Syllogism.

[2. Saith Mr. Blake, A difference may be put between ordinary and quickening food] Repl. You should have told us your difference, & how it concerneth our case, if you would have had us taken notice of it. [3. He saith, The word gives new Food, and yet supposeth not new life, 1 Pet. 1.….] Rep. The clean contrary is the scope of the Text you cite. As new born babes desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby. The Word therefore as Food, doth suppose new Birth, and Life. Christ as our first life p. 128is given in the Word to those that had not life before; but Christ as our Food is given after both in the Word and Sacrament.

But you say, [There is a Sacramental work preceding our eating, and there Christ is set forth to the aggravation of sin, to carry on the work of Contrition and Compunction.] Rep. Its a sorry arguing, that because there is that in the Sacrament which may benefit an ungodly man to see, that therefore he hath right to receive it, yea or is like to have benefit by it. He that will not consent that Christ shall be his full Saviour, may be moved to consent by seeing a Sacrament True, though it is not appointed to such ends, yet its possible. But how should he be moved to consent by receiving it, and so signa…ly Professing to consent when he doth not? that is, by lying?

The fourth Argument is from Rom 4.11.Galaspie's Argum. 4. denfeded. Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith therefore so is Baptism; therefore so is the Lords Supper; therefore it belongeth only to justified Believers. To this Mr. Blake answereth, 1. Then Ismael and each male were justified. Rep. 1. He whom you answer spoke only of the Adult: and then you should have said only then Ismael and all the males that had true right to Circumcision, were either justified believers, or the children of such, or (as to Church right) of those that Professed themselves such. And that is true. 2 And it is lis sub judice yet, whether the Synod of Dort, Davenant, &c. or Mr. Gataker were in the right, and so whether all the seed of justified persons have an Infant justification with them, or not?

You add that, [Abrahams Circumcision there is not made a proof of h…s justification.] Repl. He that maketh it the Instituted Nature or use of Circumcision to be a Seal of a Righteousness of Faith which the person had before, doth make his Circumcision a proof of his foregoing Righteousness of faith. But so did Paul concerning Abraham: therefore, &c. 2. Paul may give us a full proof of it, though he spake those words to another intent.

The fif…h Argument is to the same purpose with the former, as Mr. Blake reciteth it, and therefore I shall say no more to it, his answer requiring no more. The sixth Argument he passeth by himself.Galaspie's Argum. 5. & 6. defended.

p. 129The 7. Argument is from the Necessity of a wedding garment:Argum. 7. defended. I confess I do not think that it is the Sacrament only that is meant by tha… feast: but it is Christ as offered in the Gospel with his benefits, which in the Sacrament is spec…ally represented: and coming in, is their coming into the visible Church by Profession; and the scope of the Parable is to shew these two things. 1. That he tha… invited them to come in, did intend that they must come in that case, and with that preparation as is answerable to the nature of the feast, and is for the Honor of the Bridgegroom or Master of the Feast: and therefore they should so have come. 2. That because they so came not, they shall only suffer as those that came not, but also be cast out into a greater degree of misery, that is, because they come not with an upright, penitent, true believing heart, disposed to Obedience. Now the thing that Mr Blake should answer, is, whether it be not hence proved that men should have the Wedding garment of sincere faith before they come into the visible Church (they or their Parents) and much more before the Lords Supper? God saith, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having on a Wedding garment? But of this more anon.

Where Mr. Blake sai…h [The world may lay as fair a claim to this wedding Fe…st as the Supper. I reply. Neither one nor the other is it, simply considered in it self, but as a Church priviledge or a sign of our Church-membership. And so the word of promise claimed, or other parts and uses of it proper to Church-members, are included with the Sacraments; but not the word as preparing, and common to those without. The Lord of that Feast saith not, [Friend, why wast thou invited h…ther?] for it was done by his own appointment: but [Friend how camest thou in hither?] that is, I Invited thee not to come without the wedding garment to disgrace my house, but to bring it with thee? This therefore of Mr. Blakes is no answer.

The 8…h. Argument is [That ordinance which is not appointed to work Faith,Argum. 8. defended. is no coverting ordinance: but &c.] Faith comes by hearing,] &c. To which Mr. Blake answers that reading and seeing Miracles may also convert, and so may Sacraments as not being opposite but subordinate.] I reply. Hearing as the chiefest way of Reception, is put for all the rest: It is the p. 130word heard or read, or some way received, that is the appointed means of Conversion. Its possible the Sacrament may be a means too: but give us as good proof that it was appointed to that use, or may be used to that end purposely by the unconverted, as we shall prove the same of the Word, and you shall carry the Cause.

The ninth Argument is,Argum. 9. defended. [That Ordinance which hath neither the promise of the grace of Conversion annexed to it, or any example in the Word of God of any converted by it, is no converting Ordinance: But &c. Ergo.]

To this 1. Mr. Blake answers ad hominē, which is not worth repeating (that examples will not satisfie his Adversary). 2. That we have as many examples of mens conversion by the sacrament, at we have of their receiving strength and nourishment.] Repl. A wonderful confidence! If Mr. Blake will bring as good proof of any converted by it, as we can, that the eleven Apostles, that the Church at Jerusalem, Acts 2. and 4. and the rest of the Churches were strengthened by it, he will make good that Assertion. 3. What he saith of our (not having precedents by name) is nothing to the purpose. If he can prove it of any named or unnamed, specially of Societies, it will suffice. 4. He tels us that [The examples of Conversion by the word perhaps well examined would prove short of such Conversion as is here intended. The Conversion in Gospel-Narratives is to a Christian profession.] Repl. 1. This is too unkind dealing for any Preacher of the Gospel to use with that Word which converted him, and hath brought in so many thousands to Christ, and which he himself preacheth for the conversion of others. I should offend the patience of the Reader to stand to confute this, by proving that the Word hath been a means of true saving Conversion, yea the ordinary means. I refer Mr. Blake to what I have said before of the state of the Churches that Paul wrote to: Was there not one sort of Ground that received the seed in depth of earth and brought forth fruit? Was not Paul sent by preaching to open mens eies and turn them from the power of Satan to God? Act. 26 v. 18. Doth not Paul in all his Epistles speak of the Saints, as converted savingly by the word of the Gospel? What heaps of clear Testimonies might we bring out of his Epistles? How contrary p. 131is this new Doctrine to the Word, and all the ancient Churches, and all approved Protestants Judgements? I would we had such Evidence of true Conversion now among our Professors as the multitude of Converts gave, Act. 2. and 4. and as the Jaylor gave, Act. 1.6. and the Eunuch, Act. 8. and as Lydia, and many other.

2. But what if the Word had not truly converted them? its somewhat to be brought to an outward Profession of true faith, which the rest were that were then Church-members: But the Profession of your faith of another species, is not [the Profession of a Christian Faith,] though you call it so. If you will give me but as good proof of any one baptized person that was brought but to the Profession of this lower Faith, as I will give you of multitudes that were brought to true saving Faith by the Word, and more to the Profession of it, I will say that you have done that which never man did before you. I pray make tryal for the proof of some one.

Well! But the main strength of the Argument which you had to answer, was concerning the Promise. To which you say, [1. When the adversary shall bring a Promise made to the Sacrament for spiritual strength it will happily be found of equal force to the giving of a new life.] Repl. You next say, Implicite Promises may serve: Shew but one such. You say, [Every Promise made to the Word is made to the Sacrament.] Repl. Prove that, and take all. Though we have no Promise particularly of converting this or that man by the Word, yet we have that it shall convert many in general. Shew where is a word of Promise that the Sacraments shall convert any one? Sure, if Paul had but had such a Promise of converting men by Baptizing them as he had of converting them by Preaching, Act. 26.17, 18. and elswhere, he would never have said, I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus, &c. for I am not sent to baptize but to Preach the Gospel. 2. We find where in that Sacrament, men have Communion of the Blood of Christ, and of his Body, and are partakers of the one Bread, and have communion with one another, and are helped by it, in calling to Remembrance Christ death (in hope of that coming:) all which are undoubtedly strengthening, 1 Cor. 10, 16, 17. & 11.25, 26. Act. 2, &c. But you cannot p. 132shew where ever any was either united first to Christ, or his mystical Body by the Lords Supper, or where it was appointed to be used to any such end, or where ever any generaral or Implicite Promise of such a thing is made.

The tenth Argument was from the expresse danger of unworthy receiving,Argum. 10. defended. 1 Cor. 11.17. The summ of the answer is, That [This Argument would take off every Ordinance from the honor of Conversion.] Repl. But I conceive that the strength of the Argument (or that which ought to be its strength) is wholly overlookt; which is not from the Necessity of a Preparation in general, but of a special Preparation, or Worthiness, which is not so pre-requisite to the fruitful use of converting Ordinances. There is a saying by the superfluity of naughtiness, malice, &c. requisite, before a man can in reason expect that the Word should convert him: and yet it may convert thousands that are not so far prepared, by doing that and the rest. But the Worthiness of a Partaker of the Lords Supper must be more than this. For 1. That which the Church is Judge of, must be that the Receiver be a Church-member, professing true Faith, and not contradicting that Profession by a scandalous life. 2. Himself is required to examine himself for more, that is, whether he be sincerely what he Professeth, and Christ be in him (or else he is a Reprobate, and not to take the childrens bread,) 2 Cor. 13.5. and also that he have a Particular Preparation, according to the nature of the Ordinance. Its expresly Necessary, 1. That he discern the Lords Body. 2. That he do this in remembrance of Christs death, and with a hope of his coming: and 3. For communion with Christ, and his Church, and to be partakers of the one bread: 4. And with a Heart to take Christ and Eat; that is, to feed on him by Faith, when he takes the bread. But all this cannot be done by the unregenerate; nor is this prerequisite before a man come to the Word, that it may convert him That Preparation which is pre-requisite in a meet receiver of the Lords Supper, it was not instituted to effect (unless as it may do it when God sees good, in an unworthy or prohibited use:) But true Faith and Repentance are Preparations pre-requisite: Ergo &c.

You cannot say, that to the hearing of the Word as a means p. 133of conversion, true faith and Repentance is so requisite. The text you mention 1 Pet. 2.1.2. I say again, speaks of the confirming and edifying use of the word, and not of the converting use. The converted must bring true saith to the Word if they will expect encrease of it: but the unconverted must not needs bring true faith, if they will be brought to believe by it.

3. Yet remember that we say not that men ought to forbear coming that are unconverted; but that they ought to come; but how? To believe and repent, and so to come, and to do it in this order and no other, and they ever lye under all this Obligation.

You next instance in Prayer, and conclude that [As for Prayer there is no more ground or colour to make it a converting Ordinance than the Supper, &c.] Repl. 1. A man that hath but common desires may be perswaded to ask for what he so desires: Though he have no Promise of Acceptance, you do not find him threatned with judgement for such a Prayer (so it be not grosl… hypocritical or wicked) as he is for unworthy receiving the Supper, without a discerning the Lords Body. 2. When we exhort any man to pray for Christs pardon, the Spirit, &c. we therein exhort him to desire them; for desire is the soul of Prayer, and the chief part of its essence: Now the first of these desires which we exhort them to, is conversion it self, even that they would turn to God by a change of their wills, and express them in Prayer. 3. I can shew you where the wicked are commanded to seek the Lord, that is, by Prayer to express their returning hearts, which implyeth their returning it self; but you cannot shew where ever they are commanded to communicate with the Church in the Sacrament, but in this order, first to be converted and repent, and so baptized, and so communicate: or if Baptized already▪ to be Penitents first, and Communicants next.

But if you would have all exhorted to the Lords Supper for conversion, whom we are bound to exhort to Prayer for conversion, you would do that which I confess I dare not do.

The 11. Argument was,Argum 11. defended. that Ordinance which is Eucharistical and consolatory, supposeth such as partake of it to have part and portion in that thing for which thanks is given, &c. but &c. To this its answered, that [the assumption might as well have bin of p. 134the Word and Prayer, which are Eucharistical and Consolatory.] Repl. 1. To hear a Sermon is not to give thanks. 2. The Application of the Word must be according to mens various states. An unregenerate man may take this for consolation, If I be converted and repent and believe, I shall be saved.] A true believer may apply it to another measure of consolation, [because I am a believer, this Promise is mine, that is, secureth me of the benefit.] Now if the Impenitent and unbeliever shall do the later, he sins such another sin as if he received the Sacrament, which is an Ordinance Instituted for personal assumption and application of the general Promise.

2. As for Prayer. 1. To petition is not to give thanks. 2. And for Thanksgiving it self, an Impenitent man may not give thanks for true saving faith, Repentance, part in Christ, and hope of Glory, though he may for the mercy that he hath, because he may not lye. Now in the Lords Supper we must give thanks for our part in Christ, and pardon, and life through him: or at least, for the present Gift of Christ to us which we consent to accept.

Its added, [This Ordinance is not wholly Eucharistical, &c. It is for humbling as well as for comforting.] Repl. But if the other use be common to it with other Ordinances, and here Inseparable from the Eucharistical, then other Ordinances may be used to that end; but this may not by him that may not do both; because if he receive the Sacrament; he signally Professeth both.

The substance of the twelfth Argument, with its answer, is spoke to before:Argum. 12. defended. where Mr. Blake saith, that [The unregenerate may so far be suitably worthy for this work, that he may know himself called to it, and that it would be his sin to hold back from it, and he may hopefully expect a blessing in it.] I reply: 1. That he is called to it remotely: that is, first to repent and believe, and to communicate, we yield; and that it is every mans sin that keeps off, that is, that comes not in this order. But that he may lawfully come before this Repentance, you never proved, nor shall do, I think. 2. I would you could shew us on what ground he may hopefully expect a blessing in it. True hope goeth not beyond the promise: but the unregenerate have no promise p. 135(unless the Arminians be in the right) of a blessing on any Ordinance; much less on that which they cannot prove that they may use till they are converted. Yet Hope in a larger sense they may have, where they can prove that God hath set them a work though they have no promise. But thats not here.

The 13th. Argument is,Argum 13. defended. That Ordinance which was instituted for Communion of Saints, is intended only for Saints, &c. Its answered by distinguishing of Sants as (such by calling and separation for God (or regeneration: and that the Lords supper is the priviledge of the Church as visible.) Repl. Its one thing to ask, Who may demand it and come there? and another to ask, To whom may we give it? We may give it to all professedly separated for God. None may ask or take it but those that are heartily separated to God. But your Professor of a lower faith is neither of these, and therefore may neither seek it, nor may we give it him, if he do seek it. Whoever professeth himself separated for God, doth profess saving sanctification, which consisteth therein. Self and Earth is highest in all the unregenerate: therefore they are not separated heartily to God.

The 14th. Argument was,Argum. 14. defended. [If Baptism it self (to the adult) is not regenerating or converting, then not the Lords supper: but &c.] This Argument Mr. Blake hath no more to say to, but that this seemeth to suppose an opinion of Conversion by the very work done, which he disclaimeth. But here is no such supposition at all intimated; and he should have dealt with it as he found it, and not so have bawkt it, especially when Mr. Gilaspie had so explained and confirmed it. And because Mr. Blake thought best to silence Mr. Gilaspie's proof of his Assumption; and I think it worthy the Readers observation, at least, that he may see how far Mr. Blake is from truth in his affirmations of the singularity of my opinion, I shal here transcribe them.

[Aaron's Rod blossoming, pag. 514.515. The assumption) (that baptism it self is not a Regenerating Ordinance) I prove thus: 1. Because we read of no persons of age baptized by the Apostles, except such as did profess faith in Christ gladly received the Word, and in whom some begun work of the Spirit of Grace did appear (I say not that it really was in all, but somewhat of it did appear in all). 2. If the baptism of those who are of age be a regerating p. 136Ordinance, then you suppose the person to be baptized to be an unregenerate person (even as when a Minister first preacheth the Gospel to Pagans, he cannot but suppose them to be unregenerate) But I believe no Conscientious Minister (N. B.) would adventure to Baptize one who hath manifest and Infallible signs of unregeneration. Sure we cannot be answerable to God if we should minister Baptism to a man whose works and words do manifestly declare him to be an unregenerated unconverted person. And if we may not initiate such a one, how shall we bring him to the Lords Table?]

The fifteenth Argument is [If Baptism even of the aged must Necessarily precede the Lords Supper▪ then this is not a converting Ordinance:Argum 15. defended. But &c.] The reason of the consequence is, because true Repentance and faith are professed, and Remission of sin sealed in Baptism. Mr. Blake denieth the consequence, because all the Baptized are not Regenerate. Rep. But all the Adult Baptized according to Christs Institution are Regenerate: (of Infants its yet under debate) And if any be not so, it is they that erroneously seek that which they should not have sought.

Argum. 16. defended.The last Argument there mentioned by Mr. Blake, is from the Parable of the Prodigal, who returned before he had the Robe, Ring, Shoos Fatted-calf, &c. Mr. Blake answereth that [All Ordinances are to bring a Prodigal to such a returning posture] which is a meer begging the question, and not answering the Text, which Interpreters usually thus expound.

The next Argument is pag. 245. recited [From the Directory, where the Ignorant, Argum. 17. defended.scandalous, and prophane, that live in any sin or offence against their conscience, are warned not to presume to come nigh that holy table. He answers [it is meant of those that purposely resolve to hold their sin; and doubtless that purpose standing, here is no comfort to be put into their hands. As Mat. 5.23, 24. Sacraments will not be accepted from that hand where malice is seated in the heart, and implacably continued: but it follows n…t, but that where the soul is startled and such resolutions for sin do not appear, this may be a means, &c.] Repl. 1. You add your own corrupting gloss to the Directory: They say [warn them to forbear that live in sin against conscience,] You add, [the meaning is, if they resolve to continue in it,] And I pray you why will you turn us to mens resolutions, which is a secret of their hearts for a discovery of those whom we must refuse?

p. 137Is there the vilest Murtherer, or Adulterer, that is not purposed to leave it before he dies? 2. But what if he resolve not to continue it? Is it not bad enough if he will not resolve to leave it? Doubtles this shews Impenitency, and the other can do no more. 3 But yet you have here destroyed all your Cause in a word. For you have here excluded all unregenerate men: for all the unregenerate are habitually resolved in most heinous sin, and that against conscience. They all will confess that God is better then the world, and yet they all esteem the world before God, and love it better than God; they are a habitually resolved to please their Flesh before God, and look to their worldly felicity before his Glory. I have your consent therefore on this ground to conclude, that [a Sacrament will not be accepted at their hands.] 4. But do you not contradict this, when you add [yet if such Resolutions do not appear &c.] What if they appear not? I hats something to the Minister, but thats nothing to prove Gods acceptance, or the mans Title to claim the Sacrament. Should not secret sin deterr aswell as open? God and himself know them, though we do not.

The 18th Argument [Mr. Blake overpassing, answers the 19th which is, It is not communicable to any but the penitent:Argum. 19. defended. therefore not a converting Ordinance] or, [That Ordinance that is not communicable to any but the penitent, is not converting: But, &c. Mr. Blake denieth the Major to be true, unless limited, and giveth an instance; Reproof is for Conversion: yet not to all: all converting Ordinances are not promiscuously to be applyed to all.] Repl. An unanswerable Argument, and a meer impertinent Answer. Is it not a wonder how the Major could be denied? without distinguishing of Penitence, and saying that the Sacrament is communicable to the impenitent as to saving Repentance, but not as to common Repentance, and therefore may convert to saving Repentance. But he answer as if the Major had been this. [That Ord…nance which is for conversion, is for all]: when it's contrarily, [That which is for the converted only is not to convert] **Mr. Gilespies 20th. Argument, which Mr. Blake passeth by, is that the contrary Doctrine as it joineth with the Papists, so it contradicteth the Protestants and the Antient Churches and Writers.So that Mr. Blake saith nothing at all to the Argument, when he pretendeth to deny the Major, which taken of sound Repentance is as undeniable as that [The Medicine that is only for the living, is not to make the dead alive]: so (the Ordinance p. 138which is only for the Penitents is not to convert men to repentance.] To which he answers, by saying that [Converting ordinances are not to be promiscuously applyed.] Whats that to the Major, or Argument? The Pope dwelleth not at Rome, because the Turk dwelleth at Constantinople. So much for these Arguments and their Answers: the rest I shall pass over which Mr. Blake hath about Sacraments being converting Ordinances; Only telling him, that I confidently deny his great Assertion, pag. 241. [the unconverted have a fundamental proper right to the Lords Supper] and yet do not find my self in any [inext…icable snares:] nor will by difficulties be frighted to that opniion.

I shall only here add in a word, what I yeild about the Sacrament being a converting Ordina…ce; viz. 1. Some that have no Right to partake of it, may possibly be converted by looking on and hearing the adjoined word. 2. Its not impossible that he that sinfully and without title comes to receive it, may occasionally receive good by it. There is that there declared that hath a tendency to do good. 3. But whatever it may be a means of beyond Divine Appointment through his meer good pleasure, yet it is not Appointed to be demanded or taken by any Impenitent unconverted man for his Conversion. 4, Yet if a Minister know them not to be impenitent, but yet suspecteth it, as he must give it them upon their profession, so he may desire in the managing of the work, that it may be converting to them if they are not converted; that is, that God will bring that truth to the heart which the signs represent to the eyes; and make it an occasion of good to them that are out of their way in demanding it. 5. Yet it is rather the Hearing and Seeing, than the Taking, Eating and Drinking, that we may with any encouragement pray for this Blessing on. 6. I never know or heard of any converted by the Receiving of the Sacrament: but divers I have know converted by the occasion of it. As some that (by other kind of Doctrine than Mr. Blakes) having been brought to apprehend the danger of unworthy receiving, have been awakened so in their preparations for fear of eating damnation to themselves, that it was a means of their conversion; And some that by after-fears, least then did eat unworthily; And perhaps some by the serious p. 139speeches of the Minister in Prayer and Instruction before and after: but none by receiving it self.

It is therefore little to his main purpose or cause, that Mr. Blake sect. 13. Prop. 11. pag. 200. attempts to prove that (the Lords Supper with the word as appendant to it, may be serviceable to bring up those of Covenant-Interest to the terms and Propositions of the Covenant, may serve to work a man of Profession of faith unto faith saving and Justifying: a man in the Name the Lord's, to turn unfeignedly and sincerely to the Lord.) For x. his half Professor is not in the mutual Covenant (which its like he means by Covenant-Interest.) 2. The distinction between a Nominal Christian and a Sincere; a Profession of Justifying faith, and that faith it self, leavs out the persons that he hath to defend; that is, The Professors of another species of Faith. 3. Its one thing to prove that the Sacrament may convert the unconverted, that is, that its possible, and that it is a thing that eventually hath come to pass; and another thing to prove, that it is commanded to the unconverted or allowed them to be used to that end. The later is the thing that should be proved by him, and not the former only.

But because his Proposition is somewhat more bashfull than some of the Arguments brought as to prove it. (which have the face to look further) I shall briefly examine them.

Pag. 200.201. Argum. 1.Mr. Blake's Arguments answered. Read Galespie's Chap. 14. l. 3. and there you will see more Arguments answered, and Mr. Blake's cause overthrown. Men of that interest (saith he) that Baptism receiveth, as the intention of the work in order to salvation, these the Lords Supper serves to carry on by sanctification to salvation: But Baptism receives men of visible Profession only, &c.] Answ. 1. I distinguish between the secret Intention of God de eventu when he Instituted his Ordinances. 2. and the Appointed end or use of them, and the Intention which he commandeth men. And as to the last, I distinguish between the Appointed end and use of them as to the Minister and as to the Receiver: And so here are three distinct Questions before us. Quest. 1. Whether God, who appointed this Sacrament, did intend that it should eventually be used to the Conversion of any souls? To this I answer. No man can tell but by the Event. But I will not deny it, that which a man sinfully doth, may be the means of his Conversion. If a professed Pagan may be admitted to the Lords p. 140Supper, no man can be sure that this (with the annexed word) may not be the occasion or means of his Conversion. The same I say of the Excommunicate: yet must we not therefore admit such. What God decreeth to do by his Ordinances, is one thing; and how and to what Ends we must use them, is another.

The second Question is, Whether the Minister may or must deliver the Sacrament to the unconverted, with this Intention that he may be converted by it? To this I answer, that the unconverted are of two sorts: 1. Such as profess not to be converted, or savingly to repent and believe; and to these he may not Administer it at all, and therefore not to such Ends. 2 Such as do profess saving faith and Repentance; and to these he may administer it, with this disjunctive end; that if the person be truly converted, it may confirm him; if not, that if God so please, it may be a means of his Conversion.

The third Question is, Whether the unconverted may Demand and receive that Sacrament as a means of Conversion? To which I answer flatly, No: whether it be a saving Faith or another sort of faith which he Professeth, if he have not saving Faith it self, he may not Demand or Receive the Sacrament at all, and therefore not to any such ends.

Now to come closer to Mr. Blake's Argument; 1. I grant the Major, (as far as through the Lanthorn of his dark ambiguous phrases I can discern the sense of it,) viz that we may admit those to the Lords Supper, that are justly admitted to Baptism, if naturally capable, and have not since given cause to suspend them. And here Mr. Blake shews, that it is the lower species of Faith that entitles men (in his judgement) to the Lords Supper, because he maintaineth that this lower species entitleth them to Baptism.

His Minor I grant of the Professors of saving Faith; and deny it of all others that Profess only another faith: nor hath he proved that such have a visible Interest, or Profession, it being not Christianity, but only part of its essence, which they Profess.

His 2. Argument is (It is the mind of God they be admitted: therefore to this end.] Answ. 1. It is not the mind of God that they p. 141should Demand and Receive it: therefore not to this end. 2. It may not be the admitters principal end, but a secondary, only on supposition that the Receiver be not what he seems to be, and so be not a lawful demander of it. 3. It is not the will of God that your Professor of another kind of faith only be admitted.

In the end he sums up his Argument thus [Ministers must give the Sacrament so as it may be to edification, and not certainly to destruction: But they must give it to some not yet throughly sanctified: therefore some not throughly sanctified may receive it to edification, and not to destruction.] Answ. 1. Plus est in conclusione, quàm in praemissis. You should only have concluded, [therefore Ministers may give it. &c.) and not [therefore some may Receive it.) For 2. The word (certainly) which you put in the Major (and leave out in the conclusion) refers either to the Certainty of the Object. or Gods subjective Certainty: or the receivers subjective Certainty; and in all these respects its false. For if God or the Receiver were certain that it would prove destructive, yet the Minister may give it, if demanded; but not if he be certain of it himself. But 3. No Minister is required to be certain of the Demanders state, or whether the Sacrament will prove to his edification or destruction, nor whether the person intend rightly in it, but he is bound to give it to a Professor of saving Faith that Demandeth it, and to intend his good in it, which yet he cannot effect, if the Receiver be unmeet.