The Covenant Sealed, Treatise · Chapter 7 · Section 9 · Subsection 1 · Argument vindication 4
Argument 4. vindicated.
My fourth Argument is,The great condition to which Baptiſme engages, is not a prerequiſite to the being of Baptiſme. [The great condition to which baptiſme engages, is not a prerequiſite in Baptiſme. This is plain, no man is bound to make good his condition before engagement to conditions; no ſervant is tyed to do his work, before he hath received earneſt; no Souldier to fight, before he is liſted, or hath given in his name. But faith that is juſtifying, to accept Chriſt is the condition to which Baptiſme engageth.] To this Mr. Baxter anſwers, What is the concluſion? Therefore juſtifying faith is not a prerequiſite in baptiſme, or according to the Simile no man is bound to accept Chriſt to juſtification before he is baptized: And then begins highly to Rhetoricate. I confeſſe the reading of ſuch paſſages in Grave, Learned, Godly Divines, and that with ſuch confidence uttered, as undoubted truth, and that in zeal to ſave the Church from the errors of us that are contrary minded, doth very much convince me of humane frailty, and that the beſt of men do know but in part, and in a little part too. If Mr. Baxter ſeek an inſtance of humane frailty, he hath made no miſchoice in caſting his eyes upon me, he cannot ſee ſo many in me as I know; but I am ſorry, that he muſt put his wit upon the device of one, or at leaſt take hold on the moſt handſome ſeeming opportunity, to cry up one, and ſo to give too much evidence (as one ſaid upon the firſt ſight of it) of his own weakneſſe. As to the concluſion, that juſtifying faith is no prerequiſite in Baptiſme, in the ſenſe that every Reader may ſee I have given of it, I ſhall maintain, and as Mr. Br. hath heard, I have the ſtrength of the reformed Churches for my confirmation in it; but for the other, which ſerves onelyonly to blind the Reader, and to bring me under a charge, that no man is bound to accent of Chriſti before he be juſtified. I look upon it as an aſſertion, both ſenſeleſſe and graceleſſe. I believe it never came into the heart of any that is either grave,A poſition by the Author diſavowed and deteſted. or godly to utter it, and that there is ſcarce any ſo witleſſe, or graceleſſe as to beleeve it, and ſo Mr. Brs. volume of 31. Reaſons, five, pag. 84, 85, 86. Twenty ſix, pag. 94, to 107. are almoſt at one breath anſwered. Few of them tending to oppoſe any thing that I hold, but in the farre greateſt part brought againſt his own conceit; and no aſſertion, or opinion of mine. I ſuppoſe I could eaſily furniſh him with a large addition of reaſons, to deny this fancy; Faith is commanded in the morall Law,Reaſons evincing that a man unbaptized is bound to beleeve in Jeſus Chriſt to juſtification. as I have aſſerted Treat. of the Covenant, pag. 18. and I think no man believes that Baptiſme doth firſt put a man under ſuch obligation. Some Papiſts do charge upon us, that we maintain that Baptiſm delivers us from the morall Law, and therefore the Councel of Trent anathematizeth thoſe that hold it, but never any I think were charged to ſay, that Baptiſme is our firſt obligation to it. 2. An unbaptized man is bound to endeavour to avoid damnation, but he that believeth not ſhall be damned. 3. He is bound to endeavour to obtain Salvation; but we muſt believe with the heart, and confeſſe with the mouth to Salvation. 4. Baptiſme preſuppoſeth the Covenant; but the Covenant, as I have often ſaid, engages to believing. 5. None can be exempted from believing, but they are withall exempted from repentance; but unbaptiſed perſons are to repent, Act. 17.30. 6. Faith in Chriſt hath been actually required of the unbaptized, Act. 16.30. And therefore it is marvell that when Mr. Br. judgeth me to be overtaken in this folly, he would ſpend ſo much time with me or ſo many words upon me, tranſgreſſing the wiſe mans advice, Prov. 26.4. Anſwer not a fool according to his folly. When he thought I had no more wit than to think that no man is bound to accept Chriſt for juſtification before he be baptized, I marvel that he would ſet his wit to mine. But what is it that I have ſaid to induce him to think that I am in that opinion. I have ſaid? The great condition to which Baptiſme engages, is not a prerequiſite in Baptiſme; and can any man imagine that I meant any more than that it is not required to the being of Baptiſme? Can any man think that I ever meant that it is not required of the perſon that is for Baptiſme, till after he be baptized? and have I not in the next page cleared mine own meaning, where I ſay, that there is no neceſſity that juſtifying faith go before, but a neceſſity that it muſt follow after Baptiſme: further explaining my ſelf, It is true that in men of years juſtifying faith ſometimes goes before Baptiſme, as in Abraham it went before Circumciſion: but it is not of neceſſity required to intereſt us into a rite either of baptiſme or Circumciſion; and doubtleſſe I never thought that either Abraham or any other was juſtified by that work that was never required at their hand. I ſay, juſtifying faith, or grace in the truth of it, is no prerequiſite in marriage; and I further ſay, that a Miniſter in times paſt might, and a Magiſtrate at this time may lawfully marry perſons void of juſtifying faith or grace, and yet he is no better than a graceleſſe man, that thinks that perſons unmarried are not tyed to faith and godlineſſe. Grace is no prerequiſite to buying and ſelling. A bargain of ſail ſtands firm, though there be no grace in them that make the bargain. Men without grace may go to Kidderminſter to buy hangings and curtains, and thoſe of that place may lawfully trade with them, and yet both parties are before hand bound to grace and godlineſſe. But though my aſſertion is clear enough, yet ſome may ſay, my ſimilitude darkens it. I ſay, No ſervant is tyed to do his work, before he hath received his earneſt; no Souldier to fight, before he be liſted, The Authors meaning in ſome miſtaken expreſſions cleared.or hath given in his name. To this I ſay, If my expreſſions which I thought were clear, (well knowing my own meaning, yet) to others ſeemed dark, no candid man would draw them further then the propoſition which my argument was brought to confirm, which is, That a faith dogmaticall, or as I explain it, a faith ſhort of juſtifying, entitles to Baptiſme. In my ſimilitude I looked at the reſemblance that is between a Souldiers liſting, a ſervants entertainment into his Maſters ſervice, and a Chriſtians Baptiſme. And as a Souldier is not bound in order to liſting, firſt to fight: nor a ſervant in order to his entertainment, firſt to work: ſo a Chriſtian is not bound in order to Baptiſme, firſt to believe to juſtification. And thus I fully explained my ſelf in the next page but one. That faith which is the condition of the promiſe, is not the condition in foro Dei of title to the ſeal, an acknowledgement of the neceſſity of ſuch faith with engagement to it is ſufficient for a title to the ſeales and the performance of the condition of like neceſſity to attain the thing ſealed; To promiſe ſervice and fidelity in warre is enough to get liſted, as to do ſervice is of neceſſity to be rewarded. So that any Reader I think might clearly have ſeen, and I hope now will more fully underſtand my meaning: Having taken notice of Mr. Baxters great miſtake, and upon it his injurious charge, I think it moſt meet in this place to take notice of another (though under another head) that ſo, at once I may vindicate my ſelf from things of this nature. I ſay, in my Treatiſe of the Covenant, chap. 16. pag. 111. Sincerity is ſaid to be the new rule, or the rule of the New Covenant. To this Mr. Baxter is pleaſed to reply, When I firſt read theſe words which you write in a different character, and father on me, I was aſhamed of my nonſenſe, for they are no better: but it came not into my thoughts, once to ſuſpect a forgery in your charge. Farre was I from imagining that ſo reverend, pious, and dear a friend, would tell the world in print, that I ſaid that which never came into my thoughts, and confute that ſoberly and deliberately as mine that I never wrote. After many other words added, If when we are dead, men ſhould read Mr. Bl. book that never read mine, and there ſee it written that I ſaid [ſincerity is the new rule, or the rule of the New Covenant] can any man blame them to believe it, and report of me as from him, and ſay, what ſhall I not believe ſuch and ſuch a man that reports it in expreſſe words? Can any man now think but that I father this upon him;Mr. Baxter not injured by the Author as he is injuriouſly charged. and that I report it to the world in print, in expreſſe words, that he hath ſaid it? will it not be ſaid on Mr. Baxters credit that I ſaid it, and wrong'd him in it? But I deſire the Reader to peruſe the whole Chapter; and in caſe he find not Mr. Baxters name there at all, then he muſt needs conclude that this was ſpoken at leaſt improvidè et inconſultè, and ſome teſtimony of humane frailty given in it. I recite indeed ſome paſſages of Mr. Baxters in that Chapter without his name, being unwilling indeed to make it known that he was in any ſuch opinion, or that he had laid any ſuch charge of intolerable ignorance upon learned Divines as there he does. But of this he hath heard enough already from other hands; How can he tell that I mean him in thoſe paſſages, ſeeing I never named him, but that the words are his? And when theſe words now in queſtion (produc'd at a good diſtance from the other) are none, of his, who can ſay that I meant him? much leſſe can they ſay, that I have expreſſely charged them uppon him. If they be in any odde corner of his book (as he ſaies he knows not but that they may be), he then may be yet charged with them, and therefore injuriouſly complains of any injurious charge upon him. But to return to what we have in hand. Though in Mr. Baxters five firſt Reaſons, there is much very well worth animadverſion, yet ſeeng there is nothing, but that which hath either already been ſpoken to, or elſe that tends to the overthrow of that ſenſeleſſe ſottiſh tenent, (which I profeſſe to abhorre) I ſhall paſſe them by. For his additionall 26. Arguments which he ſets, (I know not for what reaſon) at a great diſtance from the reſt; the greateſt part of them are brought, and mightily fortified to beat down that which I think never any but himſelfe ſet up. I think his miſconceit firſt hatch't it, and I am well content to ſtand by; and ſee him murder it; For ſo many of them as look at all in oppoſition to any thing that I hold, I ſhall take them into conſideration.
His two firſt arguments drawn from Authority,Arguments bowrrowed from humane authority examined. the firſt of the Aſſembly of Divines, and others of a number of Fathers, are brought to prove that the profeſſion of a juſtifying faith is required to baptiſme; and what is that to me, who never denyed it; but in plain words have often affirmed it? It is ſufficiently implyed where I require a dogmatical faith to Baptiſme. A dogmatical faith aſſents to that of Apollos, Jeſus is the Chriſt, and when I ſay that this entitles, I cannot mean, concealed or denyed, but openly profeſſed. If I ſay that a man hath ſix pence in his purſe may dine at ſuch an ordinary, I do not mean with ſix pance concealed, or denyed, but produced and payed. Have I not both the words [profeſſing] and [profeſſion] both in the margent and in the Index? ſeeing Mr. Baxter calls upon me to declare my ſelf further in this thing, I do believe, and profeſſe to hold that, he that upon hearing the Goſpell preacht and the truth of it publiſhed and opened, ſhall profeſſedly abjure all other oppoſite waies whatſoever, and chooſe the Chriſtian way for ſalvation, promiſing to follow the rules of it, is to be baptized and his ſeed, and that upon a right not onelyonly coram Eccleſia, but coram Deo; It being the mind of God that ſuch ſhould be admitted. The authority of reverend Mr. Gataker againſt Dr. Ward is onelyonly worthy enquiring into, citing Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Whitaker, as Mr. Baxter obſerves. But Mr. Gataker himſelf underſtands not (as he ſaies) what Dr. Ward means by the initial faith and repentance which in the judgement of the Apoſtles gave right to thoſe that deſired baptiſme, and upon that account I cannot directly tell what that is that Mr. Gataker oppoſeth. The authorities quoted by him, reach not the thing that we contend about Luther ſaies, He (meaning Philip) will not baptize him unleſſe he beleeve; I ſay the ſame: Neither Simon Magus nor any of the Samaritans men or women could have baptiſme, before they believed. Calvin ſaies, He had not baptized him without true faith, which is doubtleſſe to be underſtood of fides quam, not quâ credimus, as appears in his words before. There is no doubt but Ananias had firſt faithfully inſtructed Paul in the principles of godlineſſe. A beliefe of ſuch principles then Calvin meanes. Bucer ſpeakes onelyonly of profeſſion of faith, and requiring of men to believe. Neither is there any thing in Whitakers teſtimony that comes up to our purpoſe: For Mr. Marſhalls Sermon of unity that is added, I have it not, and there is nothing quoted out of it. Whereas it is ſaid, that an hundred might eaſily, and truly be cited to this purpoſe: I ſay, if it be but to this purpoſe, it is not to our preſent purpoſe. If they be brought to prove that juſtifying faith is required of men before baptiſme, they may well prove that: but as I have ſaid, ſo I do ſay, I think never man denyed it. Dr. Ward I believe never oppoſed it. If they be brought to prove that no faith that is ſhort of that which is juſtifying gives title to baptiſme, and ſpeak no more than thoſe already quoted, they ſpeak not home to the purpoſe. And in caſe there be any that have ſaid, that Baptiſme ſtill preſuppoſeth regeneration, and that we baptize infants or men of age onelyonly upon this ſuppoſition as regenerate. As Mr. Baxter, Append. pag. 71. ſaies that, Learned Divines have given Papiſts great advantage in miſtaking the nature of juſtifying Faith, thinking that it conſiſts in [a belief of the pardon of my own ſins;] So I may ſay, that thoſe, whoſoever they are, that have confounded Covenant-holineſſe, with that of regeneration and inherent ſanctification, have given as great advantage to others, yea, to the Papiſts themſelves. And as the former doctrine ha's perplexed many a weak ſoul, being not able to make good their aſſurance, they conclude thereupon their want of Faith; ſo theſe as much perplex the conſciences of thoſe that adminiſter this Ordinance, which I had rather expreſſe in Mr. Baxters words then mine own, Append, pag. 70, 71. No Miniſter can groundedly adminiſter the Sacraments to any man, but to himſelf, becauſe he can be certain of no mans juſtification, being not certain of the ſincerity of their faith. And if he ſhould adventure to adminiſter upon probabilities or charitable conjectures, then ſhould he be guilty of profaning the Ordinance, and every time he miſtaketh he ſhould ſet the ſeal of God to a lye: And who then durſt ever adminiſter a Sacrament, being never certain but that he ſhall thus abuſe it? adding further, I confeſſe ingenuouſly to you, that it was the ignorance of this one point, which chiefly cauſed me to abſtain from adminiſtring the Lords Supper for ſo many years. And I confeſſe as ingenuouſly, that in caſe he can work me to his opinion, I ſtand reſolved for preſent to baptize no Infant, as being unable to know the Parents faith to juſtification; and further with Walaes concluding that the Parents faith doth not juſtifie the child; but as Calvin reſolves, lib. 4. inſtit. cap. 16. Sect. 20. they are baptized into future faith and repentance, which Walaeus alſo ſayes is the opinion of moſt others: Neither ſhall I baptize any man of years till I have as high aſſurance, if not more, of his juſtification, than Mr. Baxter ſeems to think any man can have of his own. If this muſt ſtand, then Paedobaptiſts and Anabaptiſts muſt all leave their Principles; and both men and women when they have learn'd to read that new name in the white ſtone, [that is] have concluded their aſſurance, muſt turn Sebaptiſts, and then let us look for as many counterfeits, as there were Jews in Chriſts time with broad Phylacteries. Thoſe that bottom Baptiſme on the Covenant, holineſſe of Covenant, diſtinct from that of ſanctification, ſtand enſnared in none of theſe difficulties or inextricable perplexities.
All the following Arguments to the 9th. may be eaſily granted, and that is thus formed,Titles given by Apoſtles do not argue that in their thoughts they were alwaies anſwered with inherent grace. If the Apoſtles uſe to communicate the proper titles of the juſtified to all that are baptized, (till they ſee them prove apoſtates or hypocrites) then they did take all the baptized to be probably juſtified, (though they might know that there were hypocrites among them, yet either they knew them not, or might not denominate the body from a few that they did know) But the antecedent is true; Therefore. For the truth of the antecedent here laid down, [That the Apoſtles uſe to communicate the proper titles of the juſtified to all that are baptized,] I expect better proof then a naked affirmation. And all that is brought for proof, is, I need not cite Scripture to prove, that the baptized ar called by the Apoſtles Believers, Saints, Diſciples, Chriſtians; Mr. Bl. hath done it already, pag. 28. And he very well knowes that I there make it good, That thoſe titles are not proper to the juſtified, but ordinarily given to thoſe that are not juſtified, nor in any ſaving condition. But if my words in the place quoted, or elſewhere may not be heard, Mr. Baxters ſure will take, who in his Saints reſt, Part 4. Sect. 3. p. 105. ſaith, There are many Saints (or ſanctifyed men) that yet ſhall never come to heaven, who are onelyonly Saints by their ſeparation from Paganiſme into fellowſhip with the viſible Church, but not Saints in the ſtricteſt ſenſe, by ſeparation from the ungodly into the fellowſhip of the myſticall body of Chriſt, quoting theſe following Scriptures, Heb. 10.29. Deut. 7.6. and 14.2, 21. and 26.19. and 28.9. Exod. 19.6. 1 Cor. 7.13, 14. Rom. 11.16. Heb. 3.1. compared with verſ. 12. 1 Cor. 3.17. and 14.33. 1 Cor. 1.2. compared with 11.20, 21. &c. Gal. 3.26. compared with Gal. 3.3, 4. and 4.11 and 5.2, 3, 4. John 15.2. His demand therefore to me is ſtrange: Now who knows not that ſalvation is made the portion of Believers, Saints, Diſciples? when he himſelf affirms that there are Saints that never ſhall be ſaved. He afterwards puts a further queſtion, Is it another ſort of them? or doth the Scripture uſe to divide Saints as a genus into two ſpecies? Not that I know of: It is but an aequivocum in ſua aequivocata. The name belongs to them but as the name of a Man to a Corps, &c. Then it ſeems that there is nothing of Reality in ſuch Separations. Camero tells us otherwiſe, that there is a reality in this Saintſhip by ſeparation. In the relation of his diſpute with Courcellius he affirmed, that the Text of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 7.14. was without doubt to be underſtood of reall holineſſe. To which Courcellius replying, He that is really holy hath no need of regeneration and baptiſme: But Infants of Believers after they are borne have need of baptiſme and regeneration; Ergo. Which Camero anſwered, (as the relation ſayes) by diſtinguiſhing of real holineſſe, which is twofold: One conſiſting in the bare relation of the perſon to the people of God, or the Church, and depends wholly upon birth within the pale of the Church, and of parents embracing the Covenant. The other is, &c. And it ſeems that the Scripture is ſtill under the change of equivocal ſpeeches all over. As Camero hath ſomewhere obſerved, that the word Saints in Scripture is far more frequently taken for Saints on Earth, then for Saints in heaven; ſo I doubt not but it may be maintained that it ſpeaks far more frequently of Saints by dedication, and ſeparation, and ſo of Believers and Diſciples by profeſſion, then by inherent qualification; and doth it in all theſe places ſpeak equivocally? had it been affirmed to be Genus Analogum, in oppoſition to uni vocum, Scripture Language real and not aequivocal.as is ſaid of Ens in reſpect of Subſtantia & Accidens, it had been leſſe; but to make nothing of this noble priviledge of which Scripture ſpeaks ſo honourably, is too plainly to ſide againſt the truth it ſelf. I would know for my learning, what advantage or profit a dead Corps is in Capacity to enjoy; I think one at all: but theſe (as the Apoſtle tells us) have much every way, even they that have no more then ſanctity of this nature; If ſuch equivocation be found in the word [Saint] their the like is to be affirmed of the word Believer, and believers having their denomination from their faith, that is equivocal in like manner, and ſo our Common diviſion of faith into dogmatical or hiſtorical, temporary, miraculous, and juſtifying, is but a diviſion of an aequivocum in ſua aequivocata, which I ſhould think no man would affirm, much leſſe Mr. Baxter, who makes common and ſpecial graces to differ onelyonly gradually, and then as cold in a remiſſe degree may grow to that which is intenſe, ſo one aequivocatum may riſe to the nature of another, animal terreſtre may become Sidus coeleſte; one of our dogs that we uſe on Earth, may become a ſtar in heaven; then miraculous faith it ſelf hath onelyonly the name, and nothing of the power and nature of faith in it. Judas had power given him to caſt out unclean ſpirits, Maetth. 10.1, 4. and he never had faith that juſtifieth; if his faith was onelyonly aequivocal, then the unclean Spirits were equivocall likewiſe; I ſhall never believe that an aequivocal faith can caſt out a real devil. The Apoſtle tells us of faith to the remooval of Mountains void of charity, 1 Cor. 13.2. If this were equivocall faith, thoſe muſt be equivocal Mountains. Mr. Baxter addes, To put the matter beyond doubt, I wiſh Mr. Bl. to conſider that it's not onelyonly theſe forementioned titles, but even the reſt which he will acknowledge proper to the regenerate, which are given by the Apoſtles generally to the baptized. Inſtances given in Adoption, Gal. 3.26, 27. union with Chriſt and ſeveral others. If I will acknowledge this, I ſhall be ſoon brought to yield up all. Is all Adoption proper to the regenerate? what ſhall we ſay then to that of the Apoſtle, Rom. 9.4. To them pertained the Adoption? Had the Apoſtle that heavineſſe and continual ſorrow of heart, for Iſrael after the fleſh, and doth he yet give them that teſtimony that they are regenerate? Gomarus on the place hath theſe words, Leſt any in this place ſhould miſtake Adoption and acceptation for ſons in Scripture is twofold, general and ſpecial. General adoption is an outward deſtination or call into the viſible Church and Company of the Sons of God, upon which account many are ſaid to be the Sonnes of God, as oppoſite to the Sonnes of men, that is, aliens from the Church, Gen. 6.2. And Iſrael this general way are called the ſons of God, not onelyonly thoſe that were elect to life eternall and regenerate, but alſo thoſe that were reprobate and meerly carnal, and therefore the Jewes, Sons of the kingdome, or the Church of God, are ſaid to be caſt into utter darkneſſe, Matth. 8.12. And whether all union with Chriſt imply regeneration, let John 15.2. be conſulted, where an union with Chriſt is cleerly held out; yet Mr. Baxter brings that text among others to prove that there are ſome Saints that ſhall never be ſaved. Mr. Hudſon and Mr. Cobbet tell us at large that, Chriſt is the head of the Church viſible, and hath many unfruitful members. 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 anſwered by their adverſaries; Mr. Hudſons words are here worthy of conſideration. OnelyOnly the inviſible company have internal spiritual communion, and are elect, many of thoſe that have external communion and are viſible members ſhall periſh, and yet by reaſon of their profeſſion, are ſaid, 2. Theſ. 1. 1. to be in God the Father, and the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, as Ames alſo confeſſeth, Med. lib. 1. Cap. 32. art. 9. Such was the Church off Corinth and Epheſus, &c. wherein all were not in Communion for life; and of ſuch Chriſt ſpeaketh, John 15.2. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he takes away. and verſe 6. If a man abides not in me, he is caſt forth as a branch, and is withered, and men gather them and caſt them into the fire, and they are burned. Theſe are ſaid to be redeemed, 2 Pet. 2.1. denying the Lord that bought them; and ſanctified, Heb. 10.29. yet hath accounted the blood of the Covenant, wherewith he was ſanctified, an unholy thing, and much more to this purpoſe, Vindi. pag. 5. And if the Apoſtle give Teſtimonies to whole Churches holding out what they ingage to be, ought to be, and profeſſedly were, this comes ſhort of his purpoſe.
I find little or nothing in all the other Arguments but that which either looks not at all towards any thing that I hold,Humane authorities vouched. or elſe is already ſpoken to. His laſt onelyonly from humane authority is obſervable. Our Divines againſt the Papiſts (ſaith he) do generally plead that Hypocrites are not true members of the univerſal Church, but as a wooden leg is to the body. I muſt tell him that if they be Members of a particular Church then they are true members of the Church univerſal, Taking univerſal and particular in a Similar homogeneal way for the viſible Church ſtate, as we muſt take them if we ſpeak any thing to purpoſe. That which is pars partis, is pars totius, if my finger be a part of my hand, it is a part of my body, and if Mr. Baxter be an Inhabitant of Kederminſter, then he is an Inhabitant of Worceſterſhire, and if of Worceſterſhire, then an Inhabitant of England; and let us ſee what they ſay of the Church viſible indefinitely. Lord Dupleſſe in his Treatiſe of the Church, pag. 3. ſaith, The inviſible Church conteineth none but the good, the viſible containeth both the good and the bad; that onelyonly the Elect, this all thoſe indifferently that are brought into her by the preaching of the truth.eViſibilis Eccleſia eſt coetus communiter vocatotum tum electorum tum reproborum. Wollebius ſaith, pag. 194. the viſible Church is a company joyntly called as well of Elect as Reprobate. fEccleſia viſibilis conſtat non ſolum ex electis & vere piis, ſed etiam ex reprobis & Hypocritis.Ravanellus in verb. Eccleſ. The viſible Church conſiſts not onelyonly of the Elect and truely Godly, but alſo of reprobates, and Hypocrites. gNoſtri Eccleſiam univerſalem non inviſibilem (quae ſolos electos & vere fideles complect…tur, de quae Chriſtus loquitur. Matth. 16.) ſed viſibilem quae electis & hypocritis conſtant intelligunt.Gomarus Analyſis, in 2 Theſ. 2. Our Divines underſtand the Church univerſal not inviſible (which onelyonly contains the elect and truely faithful, of which Chriſt ſpeaks, Matth. 16.) but the viſible which conſiſts of Elect and Reprobate. Mr. Hudſon, Vindication, pag. 7. In the ſame ſenſe, that a viſible Church may be called a Myſtical body of Chriſt, Chriſt may be alſo called a Myſticall head thereof, as Chriſt terms himſelf a Maſter, ſo he hath evil, ſlothfull ſervants, and ſtewards, as a King he hath rebells that will not have him to rule over them, even in his Church, Matth. 25.6. giving like inſtance, as a ſhepherd, as an houſeholder, as a bridegroom, a husbandman, a fiſherman, a vine, adding, Chriſt ſaith, My people are fooliſh, they have not known me, ſottiſh children, &c. hAlia eſt Eccleſia vocatorum promiſcue bonis & malis, fidelibus & hypocritis conſtans, Alia eſt Eccleſia electorum vere fid lilium qui quidem in coetu vocatorum ſunt.Pareus, Revelation 3.1. The Church of the called is one conſiſting promiſcuouſly of good and bad, faithful and hypocrites; the Church of the elect is another conſiſting of Elect and truely faithful, which indeed are of the ſame company of thoſe that are called. Ameſ. Anti Bel. T. 2. lib. 2. Cap. 1. not. 5. when Bellarmine had ſtated the controverſy between his party, and his adverſaries. Others he ſaies require inward virtues, to make any a Church member,iNosautem ut aliquis aliquo modo dici poſſit pars verae Eccleſiae de qua Scripturae loquuntur, non putamus requiri ullam inteman virtutem. But we (faith he) do not think that any inward virtue is required to make a man in ſome ſort a part of that true Church of which the Scripture ſpeaks. After diſcovery of his ſophiſtry in the word after a ſort, poſitively anſwers,kFalſum eſt, internas virtutes requirui à nobis, ut aliquis ſit in Eccleſia quod viſibilem ejus ſtatum. It is falſe that inward vertues are required of us to put a man into the Church according to the viſible ſtate of it. Abundant more like Teſtimonies might be added if it would not be the Readers trouble. And leſt all of this ſhould be evaded with this diſtinction, that reſpective to us they are members, but they are not ſo in foro Dei, let us ſee whatlEccleſiae Refor diſtinguunt inter Eccleſiam Chriſti inviſibilem myſt…cam; quae coetus eſt hominum vocatorum fidelium qui communionem habent cum Chriſto cui nulli hypocritae annumerari poſſunt, & inter Eccleſiam Chriſti Viſibilem externam, quae eſt ſocietas eorum qui veram fidem profitentur ad communionem & ſocietatem Eccleſaſticam inter ſe exercendam. Apollonius hath in his anſwer to the queſtion concerning qualification of Church-members. He ſaith, The reformed Churches diſtinguiſh between the inviſible Myſticall Church of Chriſt which is the company of believers, called, which have Communion with Chriſt, to which no hypocrite can be joyned, &c. And the outward viſible Church, which is the ſociety of thoſe that profeſſe the true faith for the exerciſe of Eccleſiaſtical Communion and ſociety among themſelves. And having expreſſed his judgement, as to the queſtion, proves it by three Arguments. The 3d. is mEx deſcriptione Eccleſiae viſib…lis cujus natur deſcribitur in jure Dei, quod ſit horreum in quo cum tritico & paleae colliguntur, domus Dei in qua vaſa aurea & ligne a ſunt, rete quo piſces boni & mali capiuntur.from the deſcription of the Church viſible whoſe nature in the right of God is deſcribed (ſaith he) that it is a barne in which chaffe is gathered with the wheat, the houſe of God in which are veſſels of Gold and wood, a net in which are fiſhes good and bad. This diſtinction therefore as thus applyed is here by him denyed, and to this end we may examine further the definitions given by Divines of the viſible Church: A definition compriſeth no parts that are Monſtrous, adventitious, Excrementitious or barely equivocal, but thoſe onelyonly that are of the eſſence or at leaſt integrality where it is an Integrum, as the Church (as Mr. Hudſon hath ſhewed) is, that is defined. We have heard Woll…bius his definition before. Mr. Hudſon, pag. 9th. ſaith, The Church viſible is a company of people, called or ſeparated by God, from Idols to the true Religion: and yeelding profeſſed ſubjection to that call, which is true (ſaith he) of the godly as well as of the Hypocrites. The Leyden Profeſſours, diſput. 40. Theſ. 32. give this definition.nViſibilis Eccleſia eſt coetus eorum qui per verbum externum, Sac amentorum ac diſciplinae Eccleſiaſticae uſum, in unum externum corpus coaleſcunt. The viſible Church is a Company of thoſe which by the outward Word and uſe of Sacraments and Eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline, are gathered into one outward body and ſociety. Explaining themſelves in he 35. Theſ. in the ſame manner as Mr. Hudſon before. The definition of Trelcatius junior little differs from it, pag. 432. And wheras Mr. Baxter ſaith, that our Divines generally plead that Hypocrites are not true members of the univerſal Church, but as a wooden Legge to the body; I am almoſt confident that in turning over all his books, he can produce but few ſuch Teſtimonies. Had he ſaid the Catholick Church inſtead of univerſal, I believe he might have found many,Univerſal and Catholick in Authors uſe of them d…ſtinguiſhed. but whether he can find them ſpeaking in his terms, I ſomewhat queſtion. When Whitaker handles the queſtion ſo voluminouſly, he ſtates it of what ſort of men the Catholick Church conſiſts, but not univerſal. Dr. John Reynolds, maintaining that poſition, The holy Catholick Chur…h which we believe is the whole company of Gods Elect and Choſen, expreſſeth himſelf by the word Catholick, we ſee, in his Theſis, and addes, The wicked muſt needs be a part of the Church, if the name of Church did ſignifie the viſible Church. Now I think that ſcarce any will deny that the univerſal Church is viſible, which Mr. Hudſon ſo largely hath proved, cap. 5. Yet Whitaker as largely makes good that the Catholick Church is inviſible, quaeſt. 2. de Eccleſ.. If I be now ſent to my Dictionary to ſee whether Catholick and univerſal be not both one, and demanded whether there be any more difference between them, then is between Idolum and Imago, about which we have had ſo much ſtir with the Papiſts, the one a Greek word, the other a Latine; I confeſſe it is ſo in Grammer, but not in their uſe of it that handle the queſtion of the Church Catholick in this manner, and when their Authority is quoted their ſenſe muſt be inquired into. And in caſe they took it for the ſame as univerſal, they could not make it inviſible, in which ſenſe Hudſon obſerves, Zanchy, Gerard, Whitaker, Chamier, Ames, Dr. Wille…, do uſe it, to which Daverant, Trelcatius, with other might be added. The diſtinction is uſual into Catholick, and viſible, and in that ſenſe a wicked man is no member of the Church Catholick, as oppoſite to vibſile, when yet he is a true Member of the Church univerſal as oppoſite to particular; And therefore I ſay that a bad man is a true Member of the Church viſible, and I think I am not gainſayed by any of our Divines, but ſeconded. But though they may be true members of viſible Churches, yet perhaps Mr. Baxter, hath a way to make them onelyonly as woodden leggs reſpective to the true Church viſible, Churches with him being no true Churches, but aequivocally ſo called, owning that Charge of Bellarmines, oConfeſſioniſtae & Calvinus, docent duas eſſe Eccleſias, veram quae eſt Sanctorum fide lium Congregatio: & externam quae nomine tantum eſt Eccleſia, in qua boni & mali reperiuntur: ſed malos eſſe in Eccleſiâ, non de Ecleſiâ.where he ſaith, that the Confeſſioniſts, and Calvin teach, that there are two Churches, A true one, which is the Congregation of the holy and faithfull: An outward one, which is onelyonly a Church in name, in which good and bad are found, but the bad are in the Church, not of the Church: But here he hath Ameſius his adverſary, who bettter underſtood the mind of Proteſtant Writers, and in this is rather to be believed. He anſwers, Tom. 2. lib. 2. de Eccleſ. Cap. 1.pCalumnia eſt manifeſta, quod impingitur illis duarum Eccleſiarum Militantium fictio, non diſtribuunt Eccleſiam miltantem in duas ſpecies: ſed duplicem reſpectum aut conſiderationem unius & ejuſdem Eccleſiae diſtinguunt ac proponunt, unam quoad eſſentiam internam, & alteram quoad modum exiſtendi ex ternum. This fiction of two Militant Churches which is put upon them, is a manifeſt Calumny, they do not divide the Church Militant into two Species, but they diſtinguiſh and hold forth a double respect or conſideration of one and the ſame Church: One according to the inward Eſſence, and the other according to the outward manner of Existence. Yet this muſt be taken further into Conſideration, ſeeing from this diſtribution of the Church, Mr. Baxter hath got up an Argument to prove viſible Churches to be no Churches, which is his nineteenth Argument of his 26. and is thus framed: If the diſtribution of the Church into viſible and inviſible be but of the ſubject into divers adjuncts, and not of a Genus into its Species, then that part or thoſe Members, which are meerly viſible, are indeed no part of the Members of the Church ſo diſtributed, but are onelyonly Equivocally called a Church, Church-Members, &c. The Antecedent muſt be yielded him; the Conſequence (he ſaith) is undeniable, in that adjuncts are no part of the Eſſence, much leſſe the form, or the whole Eſſence; and therefore cannot denominate, but aequivocally, inſtead of the eſſence.
To this I anſwer, the conſequence might as fairly have been, that theſe members which are inviſible, are no parts or members of the Church ſo diſtributed, ſeeing inviſibility, or inviſible (as is confeſt) is an adjunct as well as viſibility or viſible. There may be a diſtribution of man by hundreds of adjuncts, either corpulent or leane, high or low, black or fair, old or young, rich or poor, learned or unlearned, &c. If one of theſe ſo denominated be a true man, ſhall the other then be onelyonly aequivocally a man? If a corpulent man be a true man, is a leane man no man? If a tall, black or old man be a true man, ſhall then a low, fair or young man be no man? This muſt needs follow as well as the other. The reaſon given, that adjuncts are no part of the Eſſence, is not at all to the purpoſe, ſeeing the ſubject that is denominated by ſuch adjuncts, hath its Eſſence; though blackneſſe be not of the eſſence of a man, yet the man that is black hath his eſſence; and though viſibility be not of the eſſence of the Church, yet the Church which is denominated viſible hath its eſſence. And whereas we are warned to note, that viſibile is not the ſame with viſum; ſo I can give warning that inviſibile, is not the ſame with non viſum, though I know not to what purpoſe.
Secondly, I anſwer, the Church being an integrum, and that per aggregationem, and onelyonly one, in exact propriety of ſpeech, it cannot be capable of any ſuch diſtribution: ſo there muſt be one Church of one denomination, and another of another, but it is a diſtribution of Church-members, which ſerve as parts to make up the whole: ſome of which are onelyonly viſible, that is all their honour, to make a viſible profeſſion, and to enjoy the glory of Ordinances, and the Divine protection of God over his vineyard; upon which account they are nigh, when others are a far off. The other are inviſible members; As they have all the viſible honour before mentioned, ſo they have an addition of a far greater glory of inviſible graces. The former I take to be the Church moſt properly (though I know others are of another opinion) for two reaſons. 1. When the Church is an integrum (as Mr. Hudſon hath largely proved it) the viſible Church containes the whole, for the inviſible part is alſo viſible, inviſible reſpective to graces, but viſible reſpective to profeſſion and outward priviledges: The inviſible is onelyonly one part, and ſo not the Church in its moſt proper ſignification. 2. The Scripture almoſt whereſoever it ſpeakes of a Church, takes it in this acception, and that which is the ordinary and common language of the holy Ghoſt, which he uſes moſt often, almoſt alwayes, is that which is moſt proper. Some have ſaid, that the word Church is not more then once taken for the Church inviſible, which is, Heb. 12.23. The Church of the firſt born. If it ſhould be granted, that there is two or three places more, which will bear that acceptation of it, which is as much as can be pretended; yet I dare ſay, there is not one for twenty, where the Church is taken for the Church viſible: And is the language of Scripture ſtill all over aequivocal? When Chriſt ſayes, The Kingdome of heaven is like to a man that ſowed good ſeed in his field; is like to a draw-net: ſhall we ſay, the Kingdome of heaven aequivocally taken? Stephen ſayes, This was he that was in the Church in the wilderneſſe; muſt we underſtand it of the Church aequivocal? And when Paul gave Timothy a directory, how to behave himſelf in the houſe of God, which he ſayes, is the Church of the living God; muſt we underſtand it of a Church aequivocal? Such a one would be but a weak ground or pillar of the truth; we may ſay the ſame of abundant other places. If all theſe aequivocals be granted, it will ſhortly be queſtioned, whether there be any reality in Scripture language.
The Author vindicated from Arminianiſme.As the authority of our Divines is produced againſt the Papiſts, ſo alſo their authority againſt the Arminians is brought forth. Our Divines againſt the Arminians (ſaith he) do ſuppoſe the firſt act of believing to be the firſt time that God is as it were engaged to man in the Covenant of grace; and that it is dangerous to make God to be in actual Covenant with men in the ſtate of nature, though the conditional Covenant may be made to them, and though he hath revealed his decree, for the ſanctifying his elect. That God is then firſt engaged for the graces of the Covenant I eaſily yeeld, for then the grand condition by the help of grace is put in by the ſoul. But let us here take up that which he is pleaſed to yield, and compare it with that which he hath put into the Index of his Treatiſe of Infant-Baptiſme, where he notes this as Mr. T. his Error; That the Covenant whereof Baptiſme is the ſeal, is onelyonly the abſolute Covenant made onelyonly to the Elect, which pag. 223. he confutes. And if men in the ſtate of nature be in that Covenant that Baptiſme ſeales, (viz) the conditional Covenant, then men in the ſtate of nature, and ſhort of juſtifying faith, have right to Baptiſme. It follows, In my opinion the tranſition is very eaſie from Mr. Blakes opinion to Arminianiſme, if not unavoidable ſave by retreat, or by not ſeeing the connexion of the conſequence to the antecedent. When this was charged upon me by another hand, I was acquitted by Mr. Br. and he teſtified for me, that I had acquitted Mr. M. from any ſuch charge. I marvel therefore that now it ſhould be faſtened upon me. But let us hear his reaſon, For grant once that common faith doth coram Deo give right to Baptiſme, and it is very eaſie to prove, that it gives right to the end of Baptiſme, God having not inſtituted it to be an empty ſign to thoſe that have true right to it. What is it that we hear, will it give immediate right to the end of Baptiſme? That may be eaſily ſaid, but I think hardly proved. It is no empty ſign, if in the right uſe of it, it may prove ſerviceable to it; I am ſure the Jew outwardly had right to the Oracles of God, and yet no immediate certain right to their end, which is to be the power of God to ſalvation, It will be an hard task, to prove the certainty of all their ſalvation, that in the right of God ſtand entitled to any Ordinance of his: the reaſon will hold of all as well as one, they are not empty and vain. The Jewes had right to Circumciſion in the fleſh, and none that was a Jew outwardly might neglect it, and yet were void of Circumciſion of the heart, or forgiveneſs of ſin. The concluſion is, That it will be no hard matter to prove, that it is ſome ſpecial grace that is the end of Baptiſme, at leaſt remiſſion of ſin. And ſo upon the right uſe of common grace, God ſhould be in Covenant obliged to give them ſpecial grace, which is taken for Pelagianiſme. It will far rather follow from that opinion, that a common and ſpecial grace differ onelyonly gradually, not ſpecifically; According to that promiſe of our Saviour, Matth. 13.12. To him that hath ſhall be given, which our Divines have ſtill underſtood of graces of the ſame, and not of a different kind: he that hath common graces and improves them, ſhall have a larger meaſure of thoſe graces; and he that hath ſpiritual graces and improves them, ſhall have a more large meaſure of ſpiritual gifts. And if they be both of one kind, then Chriſts promiſe holds from the one to the other. It will be an hard matter I think to prove, that all that have right in Ordinances, though they make no right uſe, ſhall attain to the end of them.