Right to Sacraments, Disputation 2 (4 of 4)
To the Minor I say, its true: but not of those that profess not true sanctification. The conclusion as is said, is aliene: For though there can be no Giving without Receiving, yet may there be lawful Giving when it is unlawfully Demanded and Received: therefore from lawful giving upon an unlawful Demand, to a lawful Receiving, is no just consequence.
Ad hominem, I would frame the like Argument on Mr. Blake's principles thus [We must give the Sacrament to edification, and not certainly to destruction. But we must give it to some that have not a Dogmatical faith: therefore some that have not a Dogmatical faith, must receive it to edification, &c.] The Major is his own: The Minor he dare not deny on his grounds: for we must give it to men that Profess a Dogmatical faith, whether they have it or not: or else we must give it to no man, because we know not the heart. The conclusion therefore is unavoidable, that according to Mr. Blake's Principles, it is the end of the Lords Supper to convert Heathens to Christ by receiving it, so they will but lye, and say they are Christians first. I profess I see no way of Mr. Blake's avoiding this, but by renouncing his dangerous Doctrine.
The 3. Argument is, [The Law and the Gospel in their joynt strength may convert, &c. But in the Lords Supper there is Law and Gospel, &c. Ergo.] Answ. 1. What may possibly fall out is nothing to the Question of Lawful Demanding or Giving. 2. There's neither Law nor Gospel in a wicked mans unjust Demand and Reception, and Lying signal professing to take Christ when he doth not: but Law and Gospel is against it. 3. The Law and Gospel which you mention as annexed to the reception are separable: and all you can thence prove, is, that a wicked man may be converted by seeing and hearing, and therefore may see and hear: but thats nothing to receiving. 4. Nor will it prove that he may see and hear, because its possible he may be converted by it, because the same Gospel is in its season with due application to himself to be preached to that end; and Christ hath not appointed his beholding the Application to another to be the commanded means for such ends.
The 4. Argument is from the Heart breaking use of the Sacrament by aggravating sin, &c. Where the London Ministers are cited, &c.) Answ. The same answer as to the last may serve. And 1. A wicked mans Demand and reception hath no humbling use, (but as any Lye or other sin hath) though his Beholding may. 2. Its an exalting use that this humbling use prepareth for, to the Receiver: seeing therefore the wicked are uncapable at present of the exalting use, they must have that humbling word delivered by it self which they are capable of, and not conjunct with that which they are uncapable of. 3. The London Ministers speak not of the first humiliation in the passage of the New Birth, but of subsequential, at least, as to the first Intention of the work; and if of conversion, it is but upon supposition that unjust Demanders do intrude. 4. By the like Argument from the signification of the signs connext with the word, (which declare Christ crucified and risen again) you might prove as well that it is for converting heathens.
The 5 Argument is [That which is annexed to the word to second it in that very thing which works the soul to conversion to God, may bring &c.] Answ. 1. To the Major, if it may convert, it followeth not that it may be demanded to that end. 2. To be added [in that very thing] is not to be added [to that very use.] For the same word which confirmeth doth convert; but the Sacrament is not added to it for the converting use (as commanded) but for the confirming use. To the Minor I answer by denying it as to the end. The Sacrament is not annexed to that use or end, though to that th…ng: because this is a use which the word hath without the Sacrament, and the Sacrament added to the same word is added for higher in…eparable uses which the unconverted are uncapable of. Its added to be a professing sign on our part that we take Christ and Remission of sin by him; and a seal applicatory on …hrists part: And because the wicked are uncapable of these special uses, they are uncapable of a lawful receiving of the Sacrament 2. You may as well by this Argument too, prove that it is for conversion of Infidels Jews, Turks: For the Sacrament is annexed to the word in those very things that are for their conversion.
The 6. Argument is from experience: To which I answer; All the experiences which Mr. Blake mentioneth, are not only nothing for his cause, but abundantly destructive to it. Many have been unwakened by fears of receiving unworthily to their condemnation, as wicked men do: will it follow, that therefore they may receive it who are wicked and unworthy? or that there is no such danger to them if they do: Or rather that they should not receive while they are such, and that there is danger if they do; sure it is some danger that is the matter of their fear, & some threatning which is the ground: if it be their du…y to receive it even while they know themselves to be wicked, because it is an appointed means to their conversion, what need they so to fear it, unless they fear the means of their own good? If they say, it is the unworthy receiving which they fear; Its true, but that is to receive it in state of wickedness, Impenitence and unbelief, as all the unregenerate do: surely it is the wrath of God and eternal damnation which they fear, therefore they fear least it should fix them in that state. But your worthy communicant is in state of damnation, when only our unworthy communicant is such. Moreover will it follow, that because other mens doctrine which are against you doth put men into these fears which occasion their conversion, that therefore your doctrine which abateth such fears is sound? 2. Or will it follow that Receiving converteth, because the fears of unworthy Receiving do convert or conduce thereto? surely preparations and fears of unworthy Receiving are one thing, and the wicked mans unworthy Receiving it self is another thing: The former may do much good, when the later is like to do much hurt. The thing that such fear, is, least they should have no saving part in Christ, or pardon, or eternal life, which you confess your pretended worthy Receiver hath not at all.
The 7. Argument is from the Confession of eminent Divines of an opposite judgement, who will have all admitted present at the consecration, to see the bread broken and divided.] Ans 1. Had you named those Divines, you had been the more capable of an answer. I know some that have told men of your judgement, that all their reasonings do prove no more than thus, that the seeing and hearing, and not the taking may be fit to convert.] But I never knew any that said they [will have all admitted present to see &c.] 2. But what if they had or did say so? Whats your consequence. How prove you that therefore they should be admitted to receive? or that receiving is a means ordained and enjoyned for conversion,Bed… In 1 Cor. 13. inquit Charitatem esse vestem nuptiaem. because seeing and hearing is? so much for that Argument.
My 12. Argument is from Mat 22.12. [Friend, how camest thou in hither not having on a wedding garment, and he was speechless.] To [come in hither] is [To come into the Church of Christ.] By the wedding garment is undoubtedly meant, sincerity of true faith and repentance; so that I may hence argue; If God will accuse and condemn men for coming into his Church or the communion of Saints, without sincere faith and repentance, then it is not the appointed use of Baptism to initiate those that profess not sincere faith and repentance. But the former is plain in the text; Ergo, &c.
The 13th. Argument is this: We must Baptize none at age that profess not themselves Christians; (nor any Infants but on such a Profession of the Parents or Pro-parents) but they that profess only a species of faith short of Justifying faith, profess not themselves Christians. Ergo. &c.
The Major is certain; because it is the use of Baptism to be our solemn Listing sign into Christs Army; our Initiating sign, and the solemnization of our Marriage to Christ, and Professing sign that we are Christians, and we do in it dedicate and deliver up our selves to him in this relation as his own. So that in Baptism we do not only promise to be Christians, but profess that we are so already in heart, and now would be solemnly admitted among the number of Christians.
The Minor I prove thus: 1. No man is truly a Christian that is not truly a Disciple of Christ (that's plain, Acts 11.26.) No man is truly a Disciple of Christ that doth not profess a saving Faith and Repentance (save the children of such): therefore no man that doth not so profess is truly a Christian. The Minor I prove thus. No man is truly a Disciple of Christ that doth not profess to forsake all contrary Masters or Teachers, and to take Christ for his chief Teacher, consenting to learn of him the way to salvation. But no man maketh this Profession that professeth not saving Faith and Repentance: therefore no man that professeth not saving Faith and Repentance is truly a Disciple of Christ. The Major is evident, in the nature of the Relation. The Minor is as evident, in that it is an Act of saving Faith and Repentance, to forsake other Teachers, and take Christ for our sole or chief Teacher in order to salvation.
2. No man is truely a Christian that professeth not to take Christ for his Lord and King, forsaking his Enemies: but no man doth this but the Professors of a saving faith: Ergo. &c.
3. No man is a true Christian that professeth not to Take Christ for his Redeemer, who hath made propitiation for sin by his Blood, and to esteem his blood as the ransom for sinners, and to trust therein: But none do this but the Professors of saving Faith: therefore none else are Christians.
The Major of all these three Arguments is further proved, thus: No man is professedly a Christian that professeth not to Accept of Christ as Christ (or to believe in Christ as Christ) But no man doth profess to take Christ as Christ that professeth not to take or accept him as a Priest, Teacher and King: Ergo. &c.
The Major is plain in it self, The Minor is as plain, it being essential to Christ to be the Priest, Prophet and King. And from these essentials related to us and accepted by us, doth our own denomination of Christians arise. And that a bare Assent without Acceptance doth not make any one a Christian, is past doubt, and shall be further spoke to anon. If Baptism then be commonly called our Christening and so be our entrance solemnly into the Christian state, then it is not to be given to them that are not Christians so much as by Profession: but that Mr. Blake's Professor of another species of Faith is no Christian so much as by Profession, I doubt not is here proved.
And furthermore, If a Faith defective in the Assenting part, about the Essentials of its Object, serve not to denominate a man justly a Christian; then a faith defective in the Consenting or Accepting part about the Essentials of the Object, serveth not to denominate a man a Christian: But the Antecedent is true: therefore so is the Consequent. By [Defective] I mean not only in the matter of perfection of degree, but that wanteth the very Act it self.
The Antecedent is proved, because else the Turks are Christians; because they believe so many and great things of Christ; and else a man might be a Christian that denyed Christs death, or resurrection, or other Essentials of Christianity.
The Consequence is good: For Christianity is as truly and necessarily in the will as in the understanding; consent is as essential an Act of covenanting as any. So that I may conclude, that as he is no Christian that professeth not to believe that Christ is the Priest, Prophet and King; so he is no Christian that professeth not to consent and accept him for his Priest, Prophet and King: But so doth not Mr. Blake's Professor of another faith: therefore he is no Christian, nor to be baptized.
The 14th. Argument is this: If we must baptize men that profess not saving faith and repentance, then is it no aggravation of such mens sins, that they either plaid the hypocrites in such Professions, or fell from them, or walkt contrary to them. (For no man can walk contrary to a Profession which was never made:) But the Consequent is false, therefore so is the Antecedent.
Our Divines ordinarily charge wicked men with contradicting of Profession which they made with God, either in Baptism or the Lords Supper. And they expound many places of Scripture which the Arminians take as favouring their Cause, to be meant according to the Profession of wicked men. Now it seems to me, that Mr. Blake by his Doctrine doth undertake to justifie all these wicked men, from this aggravation of their sin, and to take them off from repentance and humiliation for it: For if they made no such Profession in baptism (if at age) or in the Lords Supper, then it can be no aggravation of their sin that they walk contrary to it: But I dare not undertake to secure them from the punishment.
Argum. 15. If all (at age) that are baptized (and all that receive the Lords Supper) must engage themselves to believe presently (in the next instant) yea or at any time hereafter, with a saving faith, then must they Profess at present a saving faith. Or, if we must baptize none that will not engage to believe savingly, then must we baptize none that will not Profess a saving faith. But the Antecedent is true: therefore so is the Consequent.
The Antecedent is Mr. Blake's Doctrine, who affirmeth that it is not necessary that they that come to baptism or the Lords Supper, do Profess a present saving faith, but its sufficient that they engage themselves to believe by such a faith. The Consequence is proved thus.
1. It is not the Beginning of saving faith which we are to engage our selves to in the Sacraments, but the Continuance: therefore the Beginning is presupposed in that Engagement: and so we must no more baptize without a Profession of Faith in present, than without an Engagement to believe hereafter. The Antecedent is proved thus: There is no one word in Scripture, either of Precept or example, where any person in baptism or the Lords Supper doth engage, or is required to engage▪ to begin to believe with a saving faith, or to believe with a faith which at the present he hath not: Shew but one word of Scripture to prove this, if you can; if you cannot, I may conclude that therefore we must not require that which we have no Scripture ground to require.
2. This Engagement to believe savingly, is either for a remote distant time, or for the next instant: …ut no unbeliever (as to that faith) is called to promise in Baptism such a saving faith, either at a distant time, or the next instant: therefore not at all.
1. Not at a distant time: For first, that were to resolve to serve the Devil, and be an unbeliever till that time. 2. And no man is sure to live any longer time.
2. Not at the next instant: For first, that instant cometh as soon as the word of Promise is out of his mouth, even before Baptism; and therefore by that Rule he must believe savingly before. 2. We may as well stay one minute or instant to see whether he will perform his Promise, as to baptize him upon that bare Promise of believing the next minute. 3. It is a ridiculous unreasonable conceit, that any man should say, [I believe not savingly yet, but within a minute of an hour I will;] and that this should be required in baptism and the Lords Supper.
3. God makes it not the condition or qualification of them that are to be admitted to Baptism or the Lords Supper, that they should Promise to do that which they have no Moral Power to do, (I mean, such as the seed or habit of Grace containeth, as to the act:) But the unregenerate have no Moral Power to believe with a saving faith: Ergo, &c.
The Major is proved thus: 1. To promise to believe savingly, is to Profess that they are truly willing to believe savingly; but no wicked men are truly willing so to believe: therefore they are not called to promise it; for that were to be called to profess an untruth, and so to lye; Unless as they are called to be really willing and promise both; and that is but to be sincerely faithful and to promise to continue so. 2. It is not found any where in Scripture that I know of, that God doth call any wicked man to promise to be a godly man or true believer before he is so; but only commandeth him to be so. And if God never call such men to such a promise at all, then is it not the condition or qualification of persons to be admitted to the Sacraments. (We still speak of the aged.)
The Minor is proved from many Scriptures, and is the common Doctrine of all Antipelagians, at least; We are dead in trespasses and sins: and must we baptize and give the Lords Supper to such dead men upon a Promise that they will be alive? Out of Christ we can do nothing: Without faith it is impossible to please God. It is God that giveth to will and to do of his good pleasure. And no wicked man can tell whether God will give him the grace of saving faith: therefore he cannot promise to have it. But I shall speak more to this under the last Argument.
Argum. 16. If there can be no example given in Scripture of any one that was baptized without the Profession of a saving faith, nor any Precept for so doing, then must not we baptize any without it. But the Antecedent is true: therefore so is the Consequent.
What is pretended this way we shall examine anon among the Objections. In the mean time let us review the Scripture examples of Baptism, which might afford us so many several Arguments, but that I shall put them together for brevity. 1. I have already shewed that John required the Profession of true Repentance, and that his Baptism was for Remission of sin. 2. When Christ layeth down, in the Apostolical Commission, the Nature and Order of his Apostles work, it is first to make Disciples, and then to Baptize them into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; And as it is a making D…sciples, which is first expressed in Matthew, so Mark expoundeth who these Disciples are (as to the aged) by pu…ting Believing before Baptism: and that we may know that it is Justifying faith that he meaneth, he annexeth first Baptism, and then the Promise of salvation, Matth. 28.19. Mar. 16.16. [He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.] This is not like some occasional Historical mention of Baptism, but its the very Commission of Christ to his Apostles for Preaching and Baptism, and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and Order. Their first task is by teaching to make Disciples, which are by Mark called Believers. The second work is to Baptize them, whereto is annexed the Promise of their Salvation. The third work is to teach them all other things which are afterward to be learnt in the School of Christ. To contemn this Order, is to renounce all Rules of Order. For where can we expect to find it, if not here? I profess my conscience is fully satisfied from this Text, that it is one sort of faith, even saving, that must go before Baptism, and the Profession whereof the Minister must expect. Of which see what is before cited out of Calvin and Piscator.
That it was saving faith that was required of the Jews, and professed by them, Acts 2.38, 41, 42. is shewed already, and is plain in the Text.
Acts 8. The Samaritans believed, and had great joy, and were baptized into the name of Jesus Christ ver. 8, 12. Whereby it appeareth that it was both the understanding and will that were changed, and that it was not a meer Dogmatical faith: and that they had the Profession of a saving faith (even Simon himself) we shall shew anon when we answer their objections.
Acts 8.37. The condition on which the Eunuch must be baptized was [if he believe with all his heart;] which he Professed to do; and that was the Evidence that Philip did expect.
Paul was baptized after true conversion, Act. 9.18.
The Holy Ghost fell on the Gentiles, Acts 10.44. before they were baptized, and they magnified God. And this Holy Ghost was the like gift as was given to the Apostles who believed on the Lord Iesus, and it was accompanied with Repentance unto life, Act. 11.17, 18.
Acts 16.14.15. Lydia's heart was opened before she was baptized, and she was one that the Apostles [judged faithful to the Lord] and offered to them the evidence of her faith.
Acts 16.30, 31, 33, 34. The example of the Jaylor is very full to the resolution of the question in hand. He first asketh what he should do to be saved. The Apostle answereth him, [believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved and thy house:] so that it was a saving faith that here is mentioned: He rejoyced and believed with all his house, and was baptized that same hour of the night or straight way. It is here evident that he professed the same faith which Paul required, or else the equivocation would make the text not intelligible. And that which was required was a saving faith.
Acts 18 8. [Crispus the chief ruler of the Synagouge, believed on the Lord with all his house, and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized.] Here we have two proofs that it is saving faith that is mentioned. One, in that it is called [a believing on the Lord,] which expresseth saving faith. Another, in that it is the faith which related to the doctrine preached to them, as is expressed in the word [Hearing] that which they heard they believed: but they heard the promise as well as the History of the Gospel; and they heard of the Goodness as well as the Truth; and they heard Christ offered to them as their only Saviour; for Paul never preached Christ but in this manner, and to these ends, even as might tend to their Justification, and Salvation; and it was a saving faith that he still exhorted men to.
Those in Acts 19.5. were baptized as [Believers in Jesus Christ] which is saving faith; whether it were by John's Baptism, or by Paul, or others, I now enquire not.
And what all the Churches were supposed to be to whom the Apostles wrote, I have shewed before. In a word, I know of no one word in Scripture that giveth us the least intimation that ever man was baptized without the Profession of a saving faith, or that giveth the least encouragement to baptize any upon another faith.
But before we proceed, Mr. Blake's exceptions against some of these …rguments from the forecited texts must come under consideration, how little soever they deserve it, pag. 166.
To what I said from Mat. 28.29.Mat. 28.29. vindicated. [I am very sory to hear the constitution of visible Churches to suffer the brand of making of counterfeit and half Christians] Answ. For all that I will not be moved with pity to err because you are sorry to hear the truth. 1. Church constitutions make not Christians, of one sort or other but contain them when made. 2. And my arguing was to prove that every faithful Pastor must intend the making of sincere Christians, and not only counterfeit or half-Christians. This is a truth that so good a man should not have been sorry to hear. 3. If you mean that visible Churches contain not counterfeit and half-Christians, you might have been sorry long before this to hear both Protestants and Papists say the contrary.
You add [Its well known whose language it is, that all charging duty on unregenerate persons is only to bring them to hypocrisie.] Answ. And if the end of that duty were no higher than to bring men to be counterfeit Christians, they had not said amiss. When we hear that charge, it is for perswading men to hear, pray, &c. for sincere faith: But if I perswade men to become Christians, and mean only the Professors of faith without the thing professed, or the believing with another sort of faith, then I might well be charged with perswading some to hypocrisie, and the other to be half-Christians. 2. You have not yet proved that Baptizing the Professors of a lower faith, is the appointed means to bring them to saving faith.
You say [In order to make men sincere Disciples they must be made visible professing Disciples] Answ. If there be not a palpable equivocation, you must mean, that it is the same Discipleship which some have sincerely, and others but visibly by profession: and then it must be the same faith. And then you say to this effect that [in order to make men sincere, they must profess & seem to be so before, they are so, that is, a lie is the appointed means to make the thing spoken become true] But if according to the current of your doctrine you mean in the later branch of your distinction, those only that profess another sort of faith, and so equivocate in the word Disciples, then I answ. 1. Your Disciples are no Disciples, nor so called once in Scripture. 2. Nor is that any thing to baptism, till you have proved that baptism also annexed to your Discipleship, is a means appointed to bring them to a higher saving faith.
You tell us that [men may be half Christians in order to be whole Christians] Answ. But not baptized to that end, nor must the Preacher intend the making of any half-Christians and no more.
What you mention out of Ames of taking stones out of the quarry, to polish, &c. is nothing to the purpose. Baptizing them is not polishing them, that is, preparing them for conversion, according to the Institution; but its the placing polished stones in the building: To polish them for the building, is to make them true Disciples, and not Professors of another kind of faith. P…g 168. When I say that to be Christs Disciples is to be one that unfeignedly takes him for his Master, &c. You answer, that [This is true as to the inheritance of Heaven, but not as to the ininheritance of Ordinances: The Jew outwardly was not thus qualified.] Repl. 1. Our question is, what is a Disciple? and whats your answer to that, unless you distinguish of two sorts, and mean that another sort there are that inherite Ordinances? 2. And then I say further, some Ordinances are without the Church, and those may have them that are no Disciples; and f…r those proper to the Church, none have right to them but who at least profess the foresaid Discipleship I wonder what your three sorts of Disciples will prove, that do not profess to take Christ for their Master.
Next, where Mr. Blake would have proved the Text not to be meant of sound Believers, because they are such Disciples as a whole Nation is capable to be; I answered, that whole Nations are capable of saving faith, and proved it: to which he mentioneth the capacity of stones to be made Children; As if men had no more then stones; And as if God could not make all in a Nation believers, by the same means us he makes some such. He turns to the question, what a Nation is capable of to [what may be expected] …nd argueth as if they were capable of no more than we may eventually expect, and saith [this that is a doctrine so clear that proof needs not; Where there never shal be any futurity, we may well and safely speak of an incapacity] Ans. As if omne possib…le esset futurum: and men should have every thing good or bad which they are capable of. A sad world! when among learned Divines such sayings are: Truths that need no proofs, as if the contradictories of our Principles were become Principles. Its added [Capacity is vain, when it is known, & co…fest that existence shall never follow.] Answ. Hath such an assertion bin usually heard among the worshippers of the Creator & the admirers of his works? If one of those that are suspected of Heresie had said such words, what should we make of them! Doth all Passive or Objective power, Natural, Violent or Neutral, come into act? Doubtless no man that hath one thought of these things will say so; if he do, he must say that God can do no more then he doth: nor any creature do more then it doth! But if there be such a power or Capacity of a thing that shall not exist, then it is sad to hear God charged with making all such powers or Capacities in vain. He knows why he doth many things which he tells us not the reason of; but here there is reason enough apparent, to cause us to give God better words.
I ask't whether Preachers be not bound to endeavour the saving conversion of whole Nations? He answereth [I think they are to bring them, if Heathen, to a visible Profession, and as many as they can to thorow-conversion.] Repl. 1. This is no answer to my question; unless it import a concession of what was denyed. Must men endeavour to convert a whole Nation, or not? 2. If we must endeavour to convert no more than we can convert, then we must know the success before we endeavour which cannot be; and must endeavour to convert no more then will be converted, which is worse then false 3. I will not endeavour to perswade any man to Profess to be what he is not, or to have what he hath not, or to do what he doth not.
He next noteth it as a remarkable contradiction in adjecto, that I say, (Vocation uneffectual is common to Pagans) saying, that [Calling in Scripture Phrase is not a bar… tender, but accompanyed with a professed answer.] Repl. This is like much of the rest. Let these Texts be judge, Prov. 1.24. (Because I have called and ye refused, I have stretched out my hand and no man regarded, but ye have set at nought all my counsel, &c.) so Isa. 65.12 When I called ye did not answer, when I spake ye did not hear, &c. so Isa. 50 2. & 66.4. and Jer. 7.13. & 35.17. Mat. 22.3, 5. He sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden, &c. But they made light of it, &c.] I shall recite no more. It hath not been thought a contradiction by Protestants or Papists that I know of, till now, to talk of [uneffectual calling] So much of Mat. 28.19.
To what I said from Mar. 16.16.Mar. 16.16. vindicated. litle that needs a Reply is answered. He saith [If I will contend for an exact order, then he must say that faith always preceds and never follows after Baptism] Repl. In reason we must distinguish between a precedency of prescribed duty, and of event, and not seek to blind the Reader (as you speak) by confusion. There is constantly this order in the prescribed duty that no man should seek Baptism but a true believer, for himself and his seed; and no man should baptize any but those that profess this true belief, and their seed. This is the fixed order of duty. But what then? will it follow that eventually faith never followeth baptism, nor baptism never goeth before faith? Yes, when you can prove that man never sinneth, by omitting his duty, and that God never recovereth a sinner by his Grace.
You add [And then he may preach in England to build up converts, but not to convert] Repl. True, if there be none in England that neglected that faith which God commanded before, nor received baptism in a case which is unmeet for it, nor any that were baptized in infancy when they were uncapable of believing. As to your frequent objection of the Nullity of such baptism, I shall Null it anon, in its proper place.
His concession in terms from 1 Pet. 3.21. he retracteth by an exposition of his words as spoken Rhetorically, and thinks that ony one that ever read Rhetorick may know his sense; when there is such a Wood of Tropes and Schems that such Novices may sooner be lost in them, then hunt ont the sense of every Rhetorician. The proper sense, he takes to be [an egregious peice of affected non-sense] for then it were true that [justifying faith is a promise] Repl. It only follows that justifying faith is not only an Assent, but the wills consent to the covenant of grace, or that Christ be ours and we his; and this is heart-covenanting; and that the external verbal promising or covenanting with God, is the profession of this faith. And it is not my fault if I be put to tell you, that as long as you are such a stranger to the nature of justifying faith, as many such dark, though confident passages in your books do import, your Arguings will want salt, if not sense. I know this is like to displease: But what remedy?
To the Text. Act. 8.37.Act. 8.37. vindicated. he answereth pag. 176 [that indeed he never met with any thing either in Scripture or Reason produced, th…t carries with him so much as any color for it, this excepted.] Repl. This is not my first Observation, that confidence is not alwaies a sign of a true judgement; and the seeing of no difficulties before us, proves us not to know more than other men. His particular answers are, [1. Philip. may call for that de bene esse when the Eunuch was to be admitted, which was not yet essential to his admittance.] Repl. 1. Its strange that when we are disputing what is of a necessity to a just admittance, that we must turn to dispute of the Essentials of an admittance. I never thought that any thing but admittance was essential to admittance: but there are many things si…c quibus non licet. 2. Philip is determining a question, and giveth this in as the decision, [If thou believe with all thy heart thou mayest.] And to say that this is but de bene esse, meaning that it includeth not the Negative, [otherwise thou mayest not,] is to make Philip to have deluded and not decided or resolved. Use the like liberty in expounding all other Scripture, and you'l make it what you please. The second Answer is, that [Dogmatical faith is truly a Divine faith.] Repl. But not the Christian Faith, nor anywhere alone denominateth men Believers in Scripture: I remember but one Text, John 12.42. where it is called Believing on Christ; and but few more where it is simply called Believing: but none where such are called Believers, Disciples, or Christians, or any thing that intimateth them admitted into the visible Church, without the Profession of saving faith added to this Assent. The rest which he here addeth, we shall take in, when we come purposely to speak of that subject.
I conclude, That all examples of baptism in Scripture do mention only the administration of it to the Professors of saving faith: and the precepts give us no other direction. And I provoke Mr. Blake (as far as is seemly for me to do) to name one precept or example for baptizing any other, and make it good, if he can.
Argum. 17. is from 1. Pet. 3.21. [I be like figure whereto even Baptism doth also now save us: not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God. [Whence I thus argue; If Baptism be appointed for out solemn admission into a state of salvation, as Noahs Ark received men into a state of safety from the deluge, then none should be baptized but those that profess that saith which entereth them into a state of salvation. But the former is true: therefore so is the later.
1. Here it is implyed plainly that this is quoad finem Instituentis, the common appointed use of Baptism, which the Text mentioneth, though eventually it prove not the common effect, through the error of the Receivers. And this appeareth, 1. In that it was spoken plainly in the Text of the very Nature and appointed use of Baptism, and so of Baptism as Baptism, without any Exception, Limitation or Distinction. Therefore it is not spoken of any d…fferent use that it is appointed for, to the Elect, as distinct from its common use to others. Its spoken of that signification and common use to which Baptism is appointed; viz. to save: Else we shall never be able to understand the use of it or any Ordinance from Scripture, if we shall take liberty to say, [It is this to one, but not to another;] when the Scripture saith no such thing, but speaks of the nature and use of it without distinction. Else when it saith, [C…rcumcision is a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith.] we may lay with the Anabaptists, It was so to Abraham, but not to all others.] And when the Lords supper is said to be appointed for the remembrance of Christ,] we may say, That's but to some, and not to others, when as the Text plainly speaks of the stated use of the Ordinances to all. 2. And in the type its clear: for it was not some only but all that entered Noahs Ark that entered into a state of salvation from the deluge: therefore so it is here, as to the commanded use.
2. When Baptism is said to save us, its plainly meant of the state of salvation that Baptism entereth us into; and not of Baptism ex …pere operato, effecting our salvation: And so Baptism comprehendeth the state into which we are solemnly by it initiated. As a woman that is married to an honourable man, or a Sou…dier listed under an honourable Commander, is said to be honoured, the one by marriage the other by listing: Where antecedent consent is the great foundation on both sides of the honorable relations, and the subsequent state is the condition or state it self which is honourable: but the solemn signification is but the expression of the former, and passage to the latter.
3. Hereby its apparent, that though the answer of a Good conscience be the principal thing intended and that saveth, yet the external Baptism is here included as the sign and solemnization; so that when the Apostle saith, (Not the putting away the filth of the flesh,) he means (not the bare outward act of washing alone or as such,) but baptism as it is entire, having the thing professed on our part, together with the professing sign.
4. It is therefore but by way of signification, obsignation, and complemental exhibition, that Baptism saveth, it being neither the first or principal efficient or condition of it; But is valid as it is conjunct with the principal causes and condition, for the attainment of these ends.
5. It is not a meer remote means leading towards a state of salvation, that Baptism is here affirmed to be: but an enterance, or means of entrance into that state of salvation it self. As the heart covenant or Faith doth it principally, so Baptism signally and complementally. This is plain; 1. Because it is not said to help us towards a state of salvation, but expresly to save. 2. Because the Type which is here mentioned, viz. The Ark, was such a means, that all that entred into it for preservation from the Flood, were actually saved from it. All this laid together, doth confirm both the Antecedent and Consequence of my Argument.
Calvin on the Text saith, [Hoc in baptismo liquidò apparet, ubi Christo consepelimur, ut mundo & carni mortui, Deo vivamus; —ergo sicut Noe vitam adeptus est per mortem quum in Arcâ non secus at que in sepulcro inclusus fuit, & toto mundo pereunte, servatus fuit cum exigua familia: sic hodic Mortificatio quae in Baptismo figuratur nobis ingressus est in vitam; nec salus speranda est, nisi à mundo simus segregati. — Poterat quispiam objicere, baptismo Noe nostrum esse longè dissimilem, quia pleros que hodie baptizari contingat. Respondet autem, Non sussicere externum symbolum, nisi verè & efficaciter baptismum suscipiant.] (mark verè) Atqui ejus veritas in paucis reperietur. — And least you should think that Calvin takes it for a means towards a state of salvation, and not the solemn entrance into it, mark what follows, [Nec hic docere voluit Petrus inane & inefficax esse Christi institutum, (that is, as to salvation) sed tantum excludere hypocritas à spe salutis, qui Baptismum quantum in se est dep…avant ac corrumpunt.] Mark here, that no Baptized men are excluded from salvation but Hypocrites. 2. That they that are excluded from salvation for all their Baptism, are such as did deprave and corrupt it, and not justly use it. I conclude my sentence in his following words; [Quid ergò agendum est? Nè separemus quae à Domino conjuncta sunt. Debemus in baptismo agnoscere spirituale lavacrum: debemus illìc testimonium remissi…nis peccatorum & renovationis nostrae pignus amplecti: sic tamen relinquere & Christo & Spiritui sancto suum honorem, &c. — His verbis docet Baptismum praecipuâ sui parte spiritualem esse: deinde peccatorum remissionem & reformationem veteris hominis in se complecti.]
Beza in loc. [Hoc loco B…ptismus dicitur foreign ejus liberationis qua contigit ecclesiae in diluvio. Nam & haec liberatio & Baeptismus adumbrant ecclesiae sanct sicationem & emerfionem à peccati & mortis gurgite.]
Yet another Argument may hence be raised thus:
Argum. 2. If according to the Institution the Answer of a good Conscience must be joyned with Baptism for the attaining of its end, then must we admit none that profess not that answer of a good conscience. But the former is certain from the Text: For Baptism is said to save; that's its appointed use: yet not the external washing, but the answer of a good conscience doth it therefore this is of necessary conjunction; and without it Baptism cannot attain its end: But it is to be administred & received only in order to the attainment of its end, and therefore never in a way by which the end is apparently not attainable.
What this answer of a good conscience is, we shall further enquire anon. Both the common expositions fully confirm the point which I maintain. The Assemblies Annot. recite both thus; [Hence by the answer of a good conscience we may understand that unfeigned faith, whereof they made confession at their Baptism, and whereby their consciences were purified, and whereby they received the remission of their sins &c. Some understand by the Answer of a good Conscience, that Covenant whereinto they entered at their Baptism, the embracing whereof they testified by their unfeigned confession of their Faith] viz. such a Faith as is aforesaid: so that I conclude that this Tex… doth plainly shew that Baptm is for the saving of the Baptized as to the instituted use, and may not be used meerly to any lower ends then to put them into a present state of Salvation.
A…gum. 18. No one may be admitted to Baptism, who may not be admitted a Member of the Church of Christ. No one may be admitted to be a Member of the Church of Christ without the profession of a saving faith (by himself or Parents, or Proparents) therefore no one may be admitted to Baptism without the profession of a saving faith.
I speak of such admission to Church-membership as is in the power of the Ministers of Christ, who have the Keyes of his Kingdom to open and let in, as well as to cast out.
The Major is past question, because Baptism is our solemn entrance into the Church, who were before entred by private consent, and Accepted by the Covenant of God.
All the question is of the Minor, which I shall therefore prove.
1. It is before proved that all the Members of the Church must be such as are visibly, solemnly, or by profession, sanctified from former sin, cleansed, justified persons of God, the Heirs of the Promise, &c. But this cannot be without the profession of a saving faith, Ergo, &c.
2. This also is before proved, where it was shewed that no others are Christians, or Disciples.
3. In Acts 2.41, 42, &c. The many thousands were added to the Church, were such as received gladly the doctrine of saving Faith and Repentance, and continued in the Apostles doctrine, and fellowship, and breaking of bread and Prayer: and so far contemned the world as to fell all, and make it common: And doubtless no man continued in those wayes, (of doctrine, fellowship, prayer, &c.) without the profession of saving Faith & Repentance; for the very use of these is such a profession. Of which saith Calvin in Act. 2.42. [Quaerimus ergò veram Christi ecclesiam: Hìc nobis ad vivum depictum est ejus Imago: Ac initium quidem facit à doctrinâ quae veluti ecclesiae anima est) not as barely heard, but as professed or Received) Nec quamlibet doctrinam nominat, sed Apostolorum; hoc est quam per ipsorum manus filius Dei tradiderat: Ergo ubicunque personat pura vox Evangelii, ubi in ejus professione manent homines, ubi in ordinario ejus auditu ad profectum se exercent, illic indubiè est Ecclesia, &c. Quare non temere haec quatuor rece…set Lucas, quum describere vult nobis ritè constitutum ecclesiae statum. Et nos ad hunc ordinem eniti convenit, si cupimus verè censeri Ecclesia coram Deo & Angelis, non inane tantum ejus nomen apud homines jactare.] And ver. 47. It is said that the Lord added daily to the Church such as should be saved.] Obj. It saith not that all shall be saved that are added to the Church. Answ. But it describeth them that were added to the Church, viz. that were such as should be saved; or as Beza yielded to another reading (and so Grotius and many others,) such as saved themselves from that untoward Generation, [quisese quotidie servandos recipiebant in Ecclesiam.]
The Church is the Body of Christ, Col. 1.18, 24. and none are members of his Body, but such as either are united to him, and live by him, or at least seem to do so. The Church is subject to Christ, and beloved of Christ, and cherished by him; we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones, Ephe. 5.24 25, 30. And those that are against the General Redemption, me thinks should be moved with the consideration, that it is the Church that Christ gave himself for; even the visible Church which he purchased with his own blood, Act. 20.28. Ephe. 5.25. and he is the Saviour of his body, ver. 23. But so he is not effectively the Saviour of the Professors of a Faith that doth not justifie: foreign he is the effective Saviour of those that profess a Justifying faith, and foreign of the sincere: but of others, neither way. Hitherto Divines have gathered from the plain texts of Scripture, that there is but One Church, One Faith, and One Baptism: and that those that had this Faith really, were to be baptized, and were real members of the Church; and that those that professed this faith, and so seemed to have it when they have it not, are visible members of the Church, and are so taken because their Profession is sensible to us, and by that they seem to have the thing professed. But the Opponents are fallen into a new conceit in all these.
1. They feign a New Christian faith to themselves, viz. A faith that is short of Justifying; which Scripture and the Church of God have taken to be but a preparatory to the Christian faith subjectively, or but a common part of it objectively considered: so that before there was but one Christian faith, and now they have made two. 2. And so before, there was but one sort of real serious or sincere Christians, consisting of such as had that real Christian faith: and now they have found out another sort of them, that hold another sort of faith. 3. So have they feigned a new Baptism; for the Old Baptism was for Remission of sin, and Burial and Resurrection wi…h Jesus Christ, and to engraff men into the Church wich is the body of Christ, upon the profession of a saving faith: but the new feigned ends of Baptism are far different. 4. And they have feigned also a new kind of Church: For the Church of Christs constitution is but one, which is called visible from mens Profession, and invisible from the faith professed. But they have made a Church which consisteth of a third sort of members: that is, of men that neither have saving faith, nor profess it, but only have or profess to have a faith of a lower orb. 5. To this end they have confounded the Church and the Porch, the Vineyard and the adjacent part of the Wilderness: those that heretofore were but Catechumeni or men in preparation for the Church, are now brought into it: and are annumerated to true Christians, before they once profess themselves such, and that upon a lower profession. 6 And hereby also the two sorts of Teaching are confounded, which Christ distinguisheth, Mat. 28.19, 20. That teaching which draweth men to Christ, and maketh them Disciples, and that which instructeth them when they are his Disciples; that which perswadeth them to receive Christ Jesus the Lord, and that which perswadeth them accordingly to walk in him. For they take him for a Disciple, that is but learning to be a Disciple, meerly because he submitteth to learn, and hath learned before some preparatory truths; though yet he be not made a Disciple indeed, nor profess so to be.
Mr. Blake is deeply offended with me, for saying that Hypocrites that seem not only to be found Believers, and profess a Justifying faith, when they have it not, are only equivocally or analogically Christians or members of the Church, &c. But I shall say somewhat more concerning those Believers that are described by him, who do not so much as profess a saving faith, viz. that they are no members of the Church at all (if notorious,) and are not so much as to be named Christians, nor to be admitted into the visible Church. No man can prove that ever one man was admitted a Church-member in all the New Testament, upon the Profession of any lower kind of faith, than that which is the condition of Justification. Otherwise we should have two distinct Churches specifically different, or two sorts of Christianity and Christians differing totâ specie: because the faith which is here made their qualification, doth specifically differ by a moral specification. When the Jaylor, Act. 16 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. was admitted into the Church by Baptism, with his houshold, it was upon the Professing of such a believing, by which both he and his houshold might be saved, as is before shewed. And so of all others in those times.
Argum. 19. If we once admit men to baptism or the Lords Supper upon the Profession of any other than Justifying faith, we shall be utterly confounded, and not be able to give any satisfactory Description of that Faith, and so never be able to Practise our Doctrine, as being utterly uncertain whom to baptize.
That I may the better manifest this, I shall examine all the considerable Descriptions of that faith which I can meet with. The Papists themselves are not agreed in this business: sometime they speak as if a bare Assent would serve the turn; but commonly they add that there is a Necessity also of consent, 1. To be subject to the Church. 2. To live under the Ordinances. And if they take the Intention of the party or Parents; or their Godfathers and Godmothers to be necessary, as they do the Intention of the Priest, then a bare Profession with them will not serve, nor can they tell when any one is baptized.
Mr. Blake doth speak so much, and purposely of this Point, that one would think we may expect an exact Description of this faith from him, if from any man: especially in his last Book, when I had so earnestly Intreated him before to do it, because of the omission of it in his former Book: And yet even in this hath he done nothing but involve and obscure his meaning more than before: though I had purposely urged him to a plain discovery of his sense, even somewhat beyond the bounds of modesty, as it is esteemed of in common cases: For I perceived that the stress of our differences did rest much in this; because no wise man will leave his grounds till he see where he may have better; unless he mean to be for nothing, or of no Religion: there's no reason a man should upon every opposed difficulty relinquish that he hath.
And here, that I may do Mr. Blake no wrong, I shall cite his mind in his own words, and gather as many of his disclosures of it as I can find.
For what he hath said in his Book of the Covenants, I have spoken to it already in my Apologie. And I write nor for those lazy Readers that had rather err than be at the pains of reading what is already written: I shall therefore suppose that, and gather what he saith in his Treatise of the Sacraments:
Pag. 109. he saith [I confess as much of Repentance in them as was required in any to the acceptation of Baptism: namely, A Renunciation of their false way, and a professed Acceptation of the tender of the Gospel.] And after [to renounce his way of Paganism, Judaism, and to profess and engage to a Christian faith & conversation.] Here I understand not Mr. Blake's english, if he do not plainly renounce his cause, and say the same that I do, and so make vain his industrious opposition. The tender of the Gospel is the tender of Christ, and pardon and life to all true Acceptors of it. If the professed Accep…a…ion of this tender be not [professed saving faith] beyond all common faith, I must despair of knowing what faith is, and consequently being sure that I have it, and that I may be saved by it. And if professing a true Christian faith and conversation, and engaging thereto] be not a professing of that which is proper to the sanctified. (I mean in the special sense) then Mr. Blake hath made a new Christian Faith and Conversation which Scripture never prescribed nor described.
Pag. 172. He gives another, but the most express answer, which is likest to be his mind [For a direct answer, I say, it it not profession to say we have this faith, but a profession of our assent to the necessity of it, with engagement to it that gives this little, so P. 173. [I say & do profess of those that have those secret reservations wrapt up in their breasts, & not yet from under the power of lusts, yet convinced of their duty, and acknowledging the Necessity, that it is the mind of God that they should be Baptized and have admission to Ordinances, in order to bring them more sincerely and unreservedly to God. And this being the will of God, as you seem to yield when you say, we are bound to Baptize them: I say they have right in the sight of God to Baptism.] I shall begin my Reply with his last passage; and I must needs say that Mr. Blake doth unworthily abuse me and my words, in saying that [I seem to yield that we are bound to baptize them.] Them! What them? My own words which he citeth to prove this by me, are these [Vocation, which is effectual only to bring men to an outward Profession of saving faith, is larger then Election, that makes men such whom we are bound to baptize] Forsooth in these words I contradict my self; I seem to give Mr. Blake the cause. I cannot but say, that it is pity the Church should be troubled with such an undigested undistinguishing management of controversies, for men to write so learnedly, and industriously, before they observe what they say. Is the outward Profession of a saving faith, (which I say makes men such as we are bound to baptize) the same thing with [the Profession of a common faith, short of saving, or with that common faith it self?] What should a man say to such a confuter, but advise him to joyn with us his weak Brethren, in desiring God to pardon us for such troubling and abusing the Church?
1. As to his Description of the persons to be Baptized, I shall add, 1. That his last Description, pag. 173. containeth nothing but what may stand with, First, an open refusal of God and Christ. 2. And that which is commonly taken for the sin against the Holy Ghost. For its past doubt that men may both be convinced of Duty, and confess the Necessity of it, and yet may openly profess, that the world and their lusts are yet so dear to them that they will not yet have God to be their God, & Christ to be their Saviour, on the Gospel terms. And I think a man that openly refuseth Christ at the present, should not be baptized at the present, though [he be convinced of Duty, and acknowledge the necessity of it].
As to his other Description, pag. 172. the word [Engagement to it] either signifieth [an engagement savingly to believe from that very instant forward] and this doth Necessarily import a present Profession of consent, and so of present saving faith: For man can so engage that doth not Profess such consent and believe: And this destroyeth Mr. Blakes cause. Or else it signifieth such an engagement to believe for some distant future time, which is consistent with a non-profession of present consent to have Christ as offered. And this is the same with that before confuted; If such may be Baptized, then they may say [we are convinced that we must savingly believe in Christ, and we do engage our selves to do it, as soon as we can spare the world and forsake the Flesh and the Devil; but yet we cannot, and will not do this.] Baptize such who dare for me.
But for a further search of Mr. Blakes mind, observe his words, pag. 175. Where he answers to what I now object. And first he citeth these words of mine [Where you say that an acknowledgement of the Necessity of such faith, with engagement to it, is sufficient for a Title to the state. I reply. Then those that at present renounce Christ, so it be against their knowledge and Conscience, and will engage to own him sincerely for the future have a Title to Baptism] To which he replyeth [How comes I pray you that [future in? you manifest much reading in the Law: and I have heard this as a Maxim, In obligationibus ubi nullus certus statuitur dies, quovis die debetur; There is no day overtaken, but engagement is for present, &c.]
To this I rejoine; 1. It is the first time that ever I heard of an engagement that was not de futuro as to the performance. We are agreed that the Engagement is present; but the question is whether it be to a present or future performance. And it is by Covenant or Promise that Mr. Blake supposeth this engagement made. And is there any which is not de futuro? If the Church cannot hit the Right way of Baptizing till such elucidations as these direct them to it — If you Promise to believe de praesenti, either you do at that present believe, or you do not. If you do, your Promise as to that present act which you already perform, is vain: as if I Promise to give you that which I have given you already, or in that instant give you; which were no promise, but a donation or profession: If you do not then believe, then your promise (as you call it) is a falshood▪ And to tell a lie, is no such a duty as can give right to Baptism. No man should say, he believeth, when he doth not. 2. But if it may be he means not futurum remotius] but [futurum proximum.] That cannot well be neither, because he saith [the engagement is for present.] But suppose he do mean by [present] the futurum proximum, either this importeth a profession of saving faith, as well as an engagement to believe the next instant, or it doth not. If it do, I have the thing I seek, and Mr. Blakes cause is given away. If not, then Mr. Blake doth feign God to require such a kind of promise or engagement as our titile to baptism, which I believe the common vote of reason will pronounce to be vain, ridiculous, if not impossible by most. Vain it must needs be to make so solemn a promise of performing that in the next instant, which he may actually perform, & save all that ado. Should I cause covenants to be solemnly drawn up, and witnesses called, and seals affixed, that I will give such a thing in the next Minute after the sealing; why then may I not as well give the thing it self? The Minister may stay one minute longer before he go to Church to baptize the person, or he may use one word or two more in prayer and exhortation; and by that time the instant would be come. And Ridiculous it seems to me, that any man should be admitted upon such a promise as this [I will not yet leave my sin for God, nor renounce the world the Flesh and the Devill for Christ, or take him for my only Lord and Saviour: but I engage my self to do it, or I will do it as soon as the word is out of my mouth] or [I am not yet willing to have Christ as he is offered: but I will be willing the next instant.] If any say so to me, I will hold my hand from baptizing one minute, and ask him whether now he be willing? For certainly the man must break his promise between the making and the sealing of it, if he be not a sound Believer already. For there must go more then one instant between his promise and the Act of baptizing (unless we had greater velocity of action): If therefore Mr. Blake's professor shall say, I promise to believe savingly the next instant [then if he do not, the promise is broke before it is sealed: If he do; I know no reason but why I may require him to profess that which he hath.
And is it not a kind of impossibility for any unregenerate man, rationally and soberly to promise to be regenerate the next minute or instant? Or for any that is destitute of saving faith, to promise to believe savingly the next instant: If he hath grace of such command and can believe the next moment, why not now? And doth not that man shew his heart unfound, that can believe the next moment, and will not do it at the present? If it be so in his power, let him not stand promising, but do it.
But perhaps some will say that Mr. Blake meaneth not the next instant or hour, or day, or any determinate time, but only an indeterminate time: some time hereafter. To which I answer 1. He expresseth himself by the terms [present] and [quovis die debetur:] therefore it expresly includeth the next instant or day determinately. 2. And if it were otherwise, either there is some future determinate time of the Debt and Obligation, or none. If none, its no covenant or Promise: and then it cannot be said quovis die debetur. If any, what is it? and when? Then a Promise to be a Christian, so long hence may give right to Baptism: And who can tell how long it must be? If any time before death, then thousands of Infidels, or persecutors of Christianity may say, [We will be Christians before we die, and therefore will be baptised, though now we hate them for crossing us in our courses.] But this cannot be Mr. Blakes meaning, for he speaks of a determinate time de [praesenti] & [quovis die debetur.] And it is not debitum ex praecepto that he speaks of, (for that lieth upon Infidels,) but ex promissione; and therefore if quovis die debetur, then proximo die debetur; and if proximo die, then also proximo instanti; for none can shew a reason why its due to morrow and not to day, or the next moment: and if proximo instanti, vel hora vel die, then the Promise was made for the next instant, hour or day, or else the Obligation could not have arisen from that Promise as to that time.
But faith Mr. Blake [bring me a man that in his heart is convinced that Jesus is the Christ, with his mouth professeth him, and engageth for him, and in the mean space actually renounceth him, and I will do what you would have me with him; that is, a man that is falling headlong down a ladder, at the same instant he is climbing up it]. To which I say, 1. If you mean an Absolute Renouncing him, or for the same time when he determineth to begin his Accepting of him, I confess it were a contradiction: but of your own feigning, and nothing to our business. 2. And therefore if you suppose the man to promise to believe savingly the next minute, then I confess it will not stand with a future Renouncing him: But then it is as true, that such a promise containeth, importeth, or supposeth a present profession of saving faith, or it is absurd and vain, as is aforesaid. 3. But if it be a promise to believe only at such a distance of futurity, then it not only may stand with a renouncing Christ till that time come, but seemeth to imply that so it is, if you suppose faith to be so far in the unregenerate mans power that he can make such promises of it. I told you before (which made you angry) where a renouncing of Christ did stand with your two first qualifications, Conviction, and Verbal acknowledgement, viz. Mat. 21.38. This is the Heir; come let us kill him, and seize on the Inheritance.] And for your lust of Engaging to him (such an Engagement as you describe, to believe savingly) as I have said, if it be to believe at present, it is inseparable from a profession of saving faith. If only to believe at such a distant time, it is possible to renounce all actuall union and special communion with him till that time, and to say, I will not have Christ as offered til such a time, or till I can better spare my lusts; can you shew us here such contradictory work as your tumbler is supposed to make.
Again, in Pag. 176. he reciteth the like, [Our profession qualifying for Baptism is not a profession that we have such faith (which cannot be done without an eminence of faith to assurance;) but a profession of the necessity of it to salvation, & an engagement to it.]
To which I say, 1. For your reason in the Parenthesis, we shall silence it anon. 2. Again: One that openly refuseth Christ at present, may profess that necessity of Faith, and engage to it for the future at a distance, that is, to be a Christian so long hence. But he that promiseth it the next instant, if soberly, doth profess it at this instant; For he professeth his consent or willingness to have Christ as offered, which is saving Faith. For no man breathing can say (with any such credibility as a sober man should regard) I will be willing or consent the next moment or hour; but he that is willing and doth consent or professeth so to do at this present when he saith so.
Again, p. 177. he saith to the citation of the foresaid Text, [I am sorry that such things should be mentioned where enquiry after truth is contended, and contention not studied. It is well known that I speak to a faith of profession, which is theirs that take so that party which is for that Christ, and not with those that professedly go in a full opposition against him, and are in a high rode (any such conviction of spirit supposed of sin, against the Holy Ghost.] Ans. It is your expressed opinion that I argue against, and not your heart, nor any thing that is well known, by other means and to other men. If the faith or profession which you make a sufficient Title to Baptism, be consistent with such persecution or sin against the Holy Ghost (as you speak) then it behooved me to manifest the consistency, though it make you sorry; I do it to shew the face of your doctrine and not otherwise to contend & your sorrow is but a sorry defence. 2. What you do mean by [a faith of Profession]? This was not in the former descriptions which I examined or met with. Do you put the wrong end forward, and indeed mean [a profession of faith [or] a faith conjunct with a profession]? If not I know not what you mean. If you do, then what profession is it, and of what faith? Not of a saving faith; for that you before disclaimed; and if that were it that you mean must be professed, you yield the Cause. It is therefore the profession of some common faith; and that is it which you call Dogmatical. And if it be indeed a profession of a meer Dogmatical faith, or Assent, it is consistent with that renouncing Christ which I mentioned, and is no more than theirs [This is the Heir; come let us kill him]. But if it be more than Dogmatical, and have the Wills consent, why will no intreaty prevail with you to describe it, and tell us what it is that is consented to? and so prove that to you to be the title to Baptism and the Lord's Supper? In part or in whole; I know not whether, you tell me of their consent in the next words, [They take to that party which is for Christ and not with those that professedly go in a full opposition against him.] But I dare not say that now I have all your sense. 1. Where do you find in Scripture that such a faith is the Title to Sacraments? or that ever man was admitted to them upon such a profession? 2. If they may be so admitted, then let us see the consequence. By [taking to that party which is for Christ,] either you mean, 1. That they profess themselves to be of those that are sincerely Christians: or 2. That they profess themselves willing to be under Church Rulers and Ordinances (as Bellarmine speaks;) or 3. That they will take part with Christians, in pleading, defending, &c. If the first be your meaning, then they profess themselves true Christians, and so to have saving faith. For there is but two sorts of Christians; Those that are really so, having saving faith: and those that are Analogically Christians, professing saving faith, when they have it not. 2. If you mean the second with the Papists, then consider that it is not into the Pope, nor Church Rulers, nor Ordinances that we are baptized, but into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And suppose that a man truly understand on what terms Christ is offered in the Gospel, that man may say [I am content to be in the Church under teaching, and to receive the Sacraments, and to accompany Christians and fight for them; but yet I will not yet be a Christian my self; For I am not willing that Christ should sanctifie me, and save me from my sins. [And who that dependeth on the mouth of Christ would baptize this man? It is no more than belongeth to a Seeker or a Catechumne to be willing to hear. And God never made it a Title to Sacraments, meerly to bee willing to receive them. Else all may receive them that will. At least, I must profess that I can hardly believe, but that all that will receive them, must profess that they receive them to the ends which they are appointed to. And that no man can do, that doth not eodem actu profess himself a true believer. If the third be your sense, then no doubt but many Christians in the Indies have had Moors and Indian serva…ts, who were willing to associate with Christians, and loved them, and would live and die with them, that yet were no Christians themselves.
But the fullest declaration of Mr. Blake's mind I find pag. 147. upon my earnest provocation of him to describe that faith which entitleth to Baptism. The words are these: [Seeing Mr. Baxter calls upon me to declare my self further in this thing, I do believe and profess to hold that he that upon hearing the Gospel preacht, and the truth of it published and opened, shall professedly abjure all other opposite wayes whatsoever, and choose the Christian way for salvation, promising to follow the Rules of it, is to be baptized, and his seed, &c.] To which I reply: If this be not a profession of saving faith, I despair of ever being saved. 1. No man but a sanctified man can truly desire salvation it self, as it is indeed consisting in the blessed fruition of God in Intuition, Love, Praise; and there is no other salvation. No man but the Regenerate can truly renounce all opposite wayes. One opposite way is the way of the flesh and carnal reason, and the way of worldliness, &c. No man can live out of action; nor out of moral action which tendeth to an end, and that end is his own felicity. He therefore that renounceth all other ways, must turn to Christ the only way: or else cut his own throat, or some way murther himself that he may cease action: or else must attain to a perfect desperation. 3. No man but the Regenerate doth heartily choose the Christian way for salvation. For what is that but to choose Christ for salvation? and what is that but (supposing assent) the true description of saving faith? 4. No man but the Regenerate can sincerely follow, or resolve and promise to follow the Rules of that way. For what is that but to follow the rules of Christ and Scripture? And what is that but sincerely to obey? So that he that professeth these four Points, or any one of them, doth profess that which is proper to the regenerate. So that if Mr. Blake do not here give up his Cause, and say as I do, understand English that can for me. If Mr. Blake dare adjudge all those to damnation that go not further than this faith which he here describeth to be professed, (as he must if he suppose this to be the profession of a faith short of saving) he shall never have my vote in approbation of his censure. If those who perform that which is here said to be professed, be not saved, I know not who will. Therefore I doubt not but it is the profession of a saving faith.
But what need we make any further enquiry, or dispute against a man that professedly yields the cause? Hear his foregoing words, pag. 147. [His two first Arguments drawn from authority, the first of the Assembly of Divines, and others of a number of Fathers, are brought to prove that the profession of a just…fying faith is required to Baptism: And what is that to me, who never denied it, but in plain words have often affirmed it? It sufficiently implyed where I require a Dogmatical faith to Baptism. A Dogmatical faith assents to that of Apollo's, Jesus is the Christ; and when I say that this entitles, I cannot mean concealed or denyed, but openly professed:] Reader canst thou tell what to make of this? is not here a plain concession, that a profession of justifying faith is requisite to Baptism? and doth he not averr that he never denied it? Perhaps we have disputed all this while without an adversary; as to Mr. Blake let it be so: and let us see the truth prevail, and I shall not be industrious to prove to Mr. Blake that he hath said the contrary. But yet me thinks its a marvellous thing that a man should so frequently express his mind against the necessity of the presence & profession of a justifying faith, as to Baptism, and for the sufficiency of a faith short of justifying, and the profession thereof, as a title to that Ordinance,And it is the Title over the top of his leaves that a Faith short of justifying entitles to Baptism. and now say that he never denyed the Profession of a justifying faith to Baptism, but in plain words hath oft affirmed it. Read the words that I before cited out of him: read both his books and see how much of the scope of them is this way. And let the Reader when he hath done, tell us if he can, what Mr. Blake talk't for. By the words an English man would think that he had at large argued for the sufficiency of a faith short of justifying, in re & professione, as to entitle to Baptism. But here he seems most expresly to deny it. I say, he seems: for I must profess that I dare not presume that I understand him here neither. For the rest of his book which I thought I understood, seemed as plain as this. I began once of think that a fraud lay under these words, and that it is here necessity of Precept only which he means when he saith that [a Profession of saving faith is necessary to Baptism] and not a necessity to means, or that it is sine qua non. But though I know no other way to reconcile him here to his books, yet this cannot be his sense. For the man is not fradulent; and besides his following arguing sheweth the contrary. But then I confess that arguing amazeth me again. He will prove that he is for the necessity of the profession of a justifying faith to Baptism, because he is for the necessity of a Dogmatical faith, and that faith must be profess. Wonderful! Doth he make a justifying and a Dogmatical faith all one? No; he constantly distinguisheth and opposeth them. How then doth he prove that he asserteth the necessity of the profession of a justifying faith because he asserteth the necessity of a professed Dogmatical faith. Reader I am at a loss: I dare not say Mr. Blake is so; perhaps he understands himself, make thy best on't: for I can make nothing on't, or worse then nothing. But if really he will be of this mind that [the Reality of a dogmatical faith is necessary, and the profession of a justifying faith] I shall not only thank him for giving quiet profession to the truth, but I will give him some back again, and will come my self a beg lower then he; and will affirm that we must give them the Sacraments that profess a saving faith, though they have not so much as the Reality of a Dogmatical faith. Yet Reader if thou think that there is any parcel of the cause which Mr. Blake doth not expresly give up, after all his labour, adjoin his words p. 124. and rest satisfied [so that I conceit no promise of these Ordinances made to such a faith; but an actual investiture of every such believer in them. ]
I have made the best enquiry I can into Mr. Blake's sense, and I cannot find any reasonable footing for a man to fix upon, if we once forsake our present hold; and say that it is a profession of some other faith short of that which justifyeth, which is the title to the Sacraments. For as no man can prove out of Scripture then what faith it must be, but we shall there be at a loss; so whatever he assert, we have evidence enough to prove it insufficient. A Real Dogmatical faith cannot be the title; For then the Baptizer must know the heart. The profession of a bare Dogmatical faith or assent cannot be it: For then he that hath the faith of Devils, persecutors of Christ, and such as are supposed to sin against the Holy Ghost, should have title. Some consent therefore of the will there must be. But to what, if not to have Christ as he is offered, who can tell? A consent to be externally Baptized will not serve. A consent to Baptism as Baptism comprizeth saving faith. A consent to be a named Christian, and to live among them, may be without any profession of Christianity. No man can tell where to fix, nor what we must consent to, to procure a Title, if once we forsake the present ground. If any man will give us yet a more exact Description of a faith short of justifying, entitling to Baptism and the Lords Supper, I shall be willing to examine it. For hitherto I cannot see where I should set my foot if I should leave the ground I stand on.
I now come to examine the Arguments that are brought for the contrary opinion. And I shall begin with Mr. Blake's, and then proceed to some which others insist upon.
In his Tre…t of Sacr. pag. 161. Mr. Blake beginneth some as he calleth them [Additional Arguments, that a faith short of that which justifieth gives title to Baptism.]