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 â—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 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 it s 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 Pâ—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 what 's 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 fâ—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 â—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 possibâ—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 It s added Capacity is vain when it is known coâ—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
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 servaâ—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 justâ—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 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
not renounce the world flesh and the Dâ—vil oâ— that declareth certainly that he will not renounce thâ—m at that time But such are all notorious ungodly men Therefore the Church hath ever required this in Baptism Arg. 7. We may not baptize those whom we notoriously know to be at present uncapable of receiving remission of sins for that is the use of the Ordinance according to Gods institution But such are all the notoriously ungodly Therefore I need not here I suppose with those I deal with answâ—r the Antinomian's Objection from Rom. 4. of justifying the ungodly I have said enough to that against Lud. Colvinus and others Arg. 8. Men that be notoriously unfit for Marriage with Christ to be solemnized are unfit by us to be baptized or any for them But such are all the notoriously ungodly Ergo c. Arg. 9. We may not baptize those that we know do notoriously dissemble in making the Baptismal Covenant But such are all notoriously ungodly Ergo c. Arg. 10. We may not give him the Seal of the righteousness of Faith who notoriously declareth that he hath not that Righteousness But such are all notoriously ungodly Ergo c. Arg. 11. From Matth. 28.19 20. Before we baptize men or any for their sakes we must see in probability that they are made Disciple But so are not the notoriously ungodly Ergo c. Arg. 12. Those that we must Baptize or any for their sakes must seem to believe with all their hearts Acts 8.37 And to receive the word gladly Acts 2.38.39 41. And to believe with a saving faith Mark 16.15 16. Acts 16.31 â—2 33. But so do not any that are notoriously ungodly Ergo. These Texts and many such like are our Directory whom to Baptize Arg. 13. From 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your children unclean If one of the immediate Parents be not a Believer their children are unclean and consequently not to be baptized But notorious ungodly ones are not Believers Ergo As they must be Believers that they may have Right and be Holy so must they seem Believers that they may seem to have Right and so be baptized by us warrantably But such seem not to have Faith who are notorioâ—sly Ungodly It is Objected that this Text determineth of one way of Covenant-Right to Infants but doth not thereby deny all other Answ. 1. It is peremptory in the Negative Else were your children unclean as well as in the Affirmative but now are they Holy 2. It therefore excludeth expresly all other wayes of interest in the Covenant by Birth-Priviledge Else how could that Negative be true But I confess it doth not exclude all means else of an after acquisition or reception of Covenant-Right For he that is born unclean may become by purchase or contract the child of a Believer or at age may believe himself And then he ceaseth to be unclean 3. At least it seems yielded by thâ—m that if both Parents be unbelievers the child can have no Right Aâ— theirs or on theâ—r account It s Objected that this was true of the Corinthians whose Ancestors â—ere Infidels and themsâ—lves the first Converts their children were unclean if one of them were not a believer but it holdeth not of them that had pious Ancestors Answ. 1. This yieldeth the point which is now in question that is that On their Parents account such children have no right 2. It contradicteth the Apostle's express Affirmation who saith that they are unclean which can extend to no less than the denyal of Holiness by Bâ—rth-Priviledge 3. Noah was the Progenitor remote of those Corinthians and he was not unclean Yet that makes not them Holy Else no man shoul'd be unholy Arg. 14. Rom. 11. The Israelites and their children with them are broken off because of Unbelief Therefore Notorious Unbelievers and their children are to be judged as no Church-members nor to be baptized And that all Notorious Ungodly ones are Notorious Unbelievers I have proved and may yet refute the ordinary Objections to the contrary Arg. 15. We may not lawfully baptize those children for their Parents sake whose Parents are ipso jure Excommunicated from the society of Christians as such or are justly to be pronounced No Members of the Universal Church Visible or Invisible But all Notoriously Ungodly are in one of these ranks Ergo. To explain my meaning in this Argument Observe 1. that I take not the common doctrine for true that a particular Political or Organized Church or incorporated Society of Christians is a meer Homogeneal part of the universal Visible Church All the Universal Church doth not consist of such Societies no more than all this Common-wealth doth consist of Corporations For a particular Church is as a particular Body-Corporate and all the Members of the Universal are not so Though all ought to be so that can attain it yet all cannot attain it and all do not what they ought Even in an Army a Souldier may be lifted by a General Officer into the Army in general long before he is placed in any Regiment or Troop yea there are some that are Messengers and for other employments that are not to be of any Regiment So sometime a man is baptized as the Eunuch before he be entred into any particular Church perhaps long And some were of Churches which are dissolved and stay long before they can joyn themselves to others And some live as Merchants in a moveable travelling condition And some are bound for the good of the Common-wealth to be Embassadors or Agents or Factors c. resident among Infidels where is no Church And some may be called to preach up and down among Infidels for their conversion as the Apostles did and fix themselves to no particular Church And some may be too ignorant or neglective of their duty in incorporating with any And some upon infirmity and scrupulosity hold off So that its apparent that all the Visible Church is not thus Incorporated into particular Churches 2. I do firmly believe that Baptism as Baptism doth list enter or admit us only into the Universal Church directly and not into any particular Church but yet consequentially it oft doth both And as the Parent is so is it supposed that the Infant is If the Parent live an itinerant life and bring his child to Baptism that child is entered into the Universal Church only except he leave the child resident in any particular Church and desire it may be a member of it But if the Parent be a member of a particular Church when we Baptize his child we receive it first into the universal Church and then into that particular as an imperfect member For we justly suppose it is the Parents desire which is it that determineth this Case 3. I firmly believe that the common opinion is an Error that All that are cast out of a particular Church are cast out of the universal 4. Yea or that he that is put out of one particular
Certain Disputations Of Right to SACRAMENTS and the true nature of Visible Christianity Defending them against several sorts of Opponents especially against the second assault of that Pious Reverend and Dear Brother Mr. Thomas Blake By RICHARD BAXTER Teacher of the Church in KEDERMINSTER The Second Edition corrected and amended Mark 16.16 He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned Luke 14.33 Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath he cannot be my Disciple Acts 3.23 Every soul which will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from among the People LONDON Printed by R. W. for Nevil Simmons Book seller in Kederminster and are to be sold by him there and by Nathaniel Ekins at the Gun in Pauls Church-Yard 1658. Disput. 1. Whether Ministers may admit persons into the Church of Christ by Baptism upon the bare verbal Profession of the true Christian saving faith without staying for or requiring any further Evidences of sincerity Disput. 2. Whether Ministers must or may Baptize the Children of those that profess not saving Faith upon the profession of any other Faith that comes short of it Disput. 3. Whether the Infants of Notoriusly-ungodly baptized Parents have Right to be Baptized Disput. 4. Whether any besides Regenerate Believers have a Right to the Sacraments given them by God and may thereupon require them and receive them Disput. 5. De Nomine Whether Hypocrites and other Vnregenerate persons be called Church-members Christians Believers Saints Adopted Iustified c. Vnivocally Analogically or Equivocally Some Reasons fetcht from the rest of M â— Blake's Assaults and from Doctor Owen's and M â— Robertson's Writings against me which acquit me from returning them a more particular answer To the faithful servants of Christ the Associated Ministers of Worcestershire Reverend and dear Brethren AS I ow you an account of my Doctrine when you require it so do I also in some regards when it is accused by others which accordingly I here give you and with you to the rest of the Church of God I take my self also to have a Right to your Brotherly admonitions which I earnestly crave of you when you see me go aside And that I may begin to you in the exercise of that faithfulness which I crave from you I humbly exhort you that in the study and practice of such points as are here disputed yea and of all the Doctrine of Christ you would still most carefully watch against Self and suffer it not once to come in and plead its Interest lest it entice you to be Man-pleasers when it hath first made you Self-pleasers and so no longer the servants of Christ. You are deservedly honored for your Agreements and Undertakings but it is a faithful Performance that must prepare you for the Reward and prevent the Doom of the slothfull and unfaithful Mat. 25.23 26. But this will not be done if you consult with Flesh and Blood Self-denial and the Love of God in Christ do constitute the New-man The exercise of these must be the daily work of your Hearts and Lives and the preaching of these the summ of your Doctrine Where Love doth constrain you and Self-denial clense your way you will finde alacrity and delight in those works which to the carnal seem thorny and grievous and not to be attempted This will make you to be up and doing when others are loytering and wishing and pleasing the flesh and contenting themselves with plausible Sermons and the repute of being able pious men If these two Graces be but living in your hearts they will run through your thoughts and words and waies and give them a spirituall and heavenly tincture They will appear in your Sermons and exemplary lives and give you a special fertility in good works They will have so fruitful an influence upon all your flock that none of them shall pass into another world and take possession of their everlasting State till you have done your best for their Conversion and salvation and therefore that we may daily live in the Love of God in Self-denial and Christian unity is the summ of the praiers of Your unworthy Brother Richard Baxter Kederminster Jan. 17. 1656. The Preface IT is not long ago since it was exceeding far from my thoughts that ever I should have been so much imployed in Controversies with dear and Reverend Brethren as since that time I have been I repent of any temerity unskilfulness or other sin of my own which might occasion it and I am much grieved that it hath occasioned offense to some of the Brethren whom I contradict But yet I foresee that some light is like to arise by this collision and the Church will receive more good then hurt by it We are united in Christ and in hearty Love to one another which as my soul is certainly conscious of so I have not the least doubt of it in most of my Brethren with whom I have these Debates we are so far agreed that we do without scruple profess our selves of the same faith and Church and where the Consequences of our Differences may seem to import any great distance which we are fain to manifest in our Disputes we lay that more upon the opinion then the persons as knowing that they discern not and own not such Consequences And if any salt be mingled in our Writings which is usual in Disputes that are not lifeless or it is intended rather to season then to fret or to bite that which each one takes to be an error rather then the man that holdeth it If there be two or three toothed contenders that have more to do with persons then with doctrines that 's nothing to the rest And thus on both sides those that erre and those that have the truth do shew that Error is the thing which they detest and would disclaim it if they saw it and that Truth is it which they love and are zealous for it so far as they know it And doubtless the comparing of our several Evidences will be some help to the unprejudiced to the attainment of a clearer discovery of the Truth The greatest thing that troubleth me is to hear that there are some men yea which is the wonder some Orthodox Godly Ministers though I hope but few that fetch an Argument from our Disputes against the motions to Peace and Unity and unquestionable Duties which on other occasions are made to them and if any Arguments of mine be used to move them they presently reply If he would promote peace he should not break it by dissenting from or writing against his Brethren But what if I were as bad as you can imagine will you therefore refuse any Evidence that shall be brought you or neglect any duty that God shall call you to Will my unpeaceableness excuse yours But stay Brethren do you build the Churches Peace on such terms as these Will you have Union and Communion with none but
Reason for Doctor Owen's Indignation and less for his gross mis-reports and Socinian parallel to pag. 488 The causlesness of Mr. Blake's tears and trembling pag. 489 His untrue reports of my self of the profaneness of the Worcestershire Combinations p. 500 His untrue and dis-ingenuous report of my abusing Mr. Ball p. 500 The complexion of the rest of his Dispute not yet answered p. 501 A brief discussion of his doctrine of the Faith that entituleth to Baptism pag. 502 to 513 The impotency of more of his Accusations pag. 513 514 The substance and quality of Mr. Robertson's Epistolary Disputation pag. 515 516 His implacable kindeness and dreadful Protestation pag. 517 Of Punishment and mental Remisson pag. 518 519 Of a creeping MS. p. 520 Of the triumphing Dream of Dr Owen and Mr Blake of the terrible Conditions which I impose on my Answerers in the Preface of my Confession p. 521 The first Disputation Quest. Whether Ministers may admit persons into the Church of Christ by Baptism upon the bare verbal Profession of the true Christian saving faith without staying for or requiring any further Evidences of sincerity Aff. IN almost all our controverted Cases the Church still findeth the mischief of Extremes and among the rest in this about the due qualification of those whom we must admit to the Sacraments Some will not look after saving Faith at all but have found out a Faith of another species which they call Dogmatical which they take to be the Title to both the Sacraments Others while they look after saving faith will not take up with that Evidence of it a bare Profession which God in Scripture hath directed them to accept but they must either pretend to search the heart or stay for some better Evidences of Regeneration The confuting of these last shall be the business of this Disputation and the confuting of the former shall be the matter of the rest We here suppose that Baptism is a standing Ordinance of Christ and that the use of it is to be the sign of our Entrance into the Church of Christ not only solemnizing our Covenant with God in which upon our consent we were before secretly entred but also investing us in our Church honours and priviledges For as the Prince doth by a sword conferr the order and honour of Knighthood which he might do before by private Grant or as a man doth by a Key deliver to a Tenant the possession of a House or by a twig and turf the possession of Lands so doth God by Baptism deliver to the true Believer the honorable order of Christianity and power to be a member of Christ and his Church and a son of God and therewith he delivereth him the pardon of his sins and other Priviledges of his people Though to them that come without this saving faith there is only an Offer of the Internal Benefits from God and no Delivery of possession and only a Ministerial delivery of the possession of the external priviledges without that Title which before God will warrant their Claim anh Reception though there be enough in the Ministers Commission to warrant his delivery upon that Claim It is here also supposed that it belongeth to the Ministerial Office to Baptize and by Baptizing to admit persons into the visible Church And this is not the smallest part of their Trust and Duty and Honour nor the least of the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven which is committed to their care Ordinarily none can be admitted into the visible Church or made a visible Christian as thus listed among such but by the Office of the Ministry And therefore the Minister is made the Judge of mens aptitude to this honour for no man must act against or without the conduct of his own Judgement And therefore to whomsoever it belongeth to Baptize ordinarily to them it doth belong to judge who is fit to be baptized It may be thought that it is a very great power that Christ hath herein conferred on his Officers and that it may be easily abused to tyranny while every Minister shall have power to refuse persons their visible Christianity or the badge of it and so to make Christians as they please But first they are tyed up themselves by certain Rules as we are further to shew in this Dispute and secondâ—y if one should tyrannize there are enow more to relieve us thirdly there is no power but may be abused but yet it must be trusted somewhere and into what hands should Christ have fitlier put it than into theirs that are by Gifts and Offices fitted for the trust I have marvelled sometime when I have heard secular Rulers on one side and the People on the other side cry down the Ministerial power of excommunicating or so much as keeping from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper that they did not as much or more contend against their Power of Baptizing and Judging who should be admitted into the Church But I think the reason is because Ministers admitted all so generally that they were not awakened to the observation of their power herein nor to any jealousie of them left they should as they call it tyrannize But undoubtedly they might as fairly say that it belongeth either to the Magistrate or to the Bishop alone or to the Major Vote of the Congregation to Baptize or Judge who shall or shall not be baptized and so admitted into the honour of visible Christianity and Church-membership as to say that it belongeth to the Magistrate or the Bishop alone or the people to excommunicate or to judge who shall be excommunicated For the Power of taking into the Church Universal is as great as that of putting out of a particular Congregation And Christ gave the Keyes conjunctly and not dividedly and therefore he that hath the admitting Key hath the Excluding Key Had our people but well considered what Interest the Ministerial Office hath in their very Baptism and Christianity and that they cannot be New-born into the Kingdom of God without the help of these Midwives at least and Scripture gives them also the Title of Parentage they would then have discerned that by their very Baptism they are engaged to the Ministery subserviently to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost to whom they are principally engaged For as the Liturgie speaks they are Dedicated to God by our Office and Ministery and they have their visible state in the Christian Church and Possession of its Priviledges delivered to them by our Office and Ministery and therefore me thinks they should well bethink themselves before they renounce it and despise it till they dare renounce and despise their Baptism and those that do that I do not much wonder if they renounce our Ministery Furthermore It is here supposed that a Profession is necessary before we may admit men to Baptism and that this must be a profession of the true Christian saving faith and not only of some other sort of faith And we
that believeth in him as a Teacher only for that is no more then to believe in him as in Moses or Elias 4. He that is sincerely a Disciple in heart must take Christ for his only Teacher in the way to everlasting life renouncing all other except as they stand under him and must be willing to be taught and guided by him in all things therefore he that is a professed Disciple must profess all this And that is to profess saving Faith For without saving faith no man can so believe in him or be heartily willing to be taught by him The lessons that they are to learn of him are self-denial and the contempt of this world and the love of one another and to be meek and lowly in heart that they may find rest to their souls Mat. 11.27 28. And these he proclaimeth when he inviteth men to his school But no ungodly man is willing to learn any of these and therefore unwilling are they to be his Disciples Argum. 8. We ought not to baptize those persons or their Infants as theirs who are visible members of the Kingdom of the Devil and his children or that do not so much as profess their forsaking of the child-hood and Kingdom of the devil But such are all that profess not a saving faith Ergo. The Major is proved thus If we must Baptize none but for present admission into the Kingdom of Christ then we must baptize none but those that profess a present departure from the Kingdom of the devil But the former is true therefore so is the latter The Antecedent is granted by those that I have to do with The reason of the consequence is evident in that all the world is divided into these two Kingdoms and they are so opposite that there is no passing into one but from the other The Minor of the first Argument I prove thus All they are visibly in the Kingdom of the Devil or not so much as by Profession removed out of it who Profess not a removal from that conditionâ— in which the wrath of God abideth on them and they are excluded by the Gospel from everlasting life But such are all that profess not a justifying faith Therefore I express the Major two waies disjunctively lest any should run to instances of men that are converted have not yet had a cal or opportunity to profess it If such are not visibly in the Kingdom of the Devil at least they are not visibly out of it The Major is proved in that it is the condition of the covenant of grace performed that differenceth the members of Christs Kingdom from Satans and so it is that condition profest to be performed that visibly differenceth them before men It is the promise of grace that bringeth them out of Satans Kingdom therefore it is only done invisibly to those that profess the performance of the condition Moreover to be out of Satans Kingdom visibly is to be visibly from under his Government but those that profess not saving faith are not visibly from under his Government Lastly to be visibly out of Satans Kingdom is to be visibly freed from his power as the Executioner of Gods eternal vengeance But so are none that profess not saving faith The Minor is proved from John 3.36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life and he that believeth not the Son or obeyeth not shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him where it is plain 1. That the unbelief spoken of is that which is opposed to saving faith even to that faith which hath here the promise of everlasting life 2. And that this leaves them visibly under the wrath of God So in Mar. 16.16 compared with Mat. 28.19 In the later Christ bids them make him Disciples and in the former he describeth those that are such and those that remain still in the Kingdom of Satan He that blieveth and is Baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned Here it is evident that the unbelief threatned is that which is contrary to and even the privation of the faith that Salvation is expresly promised to and that all that profess not this saving faâ—th are not so much as professedly escaped a state of Damnation and that this is the differencing Character of Christs Disciples to be baptized of which yet more afterward so Acts 26.18 It is the opening of mens eyes and the turning them from darkness to light and the power of Satan to God that they may receive Remission of sins c. which is the true state of them that are Christians in heart and the Profession of this that proveth them professed Christians and they that do not profess to be thus enlightned and converted do not profess to be brought from under the power of Satan for that is here made the terminus à quo So Col. 1.13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son Here the passing into the Kingdom of Christ is by passing from the Kingdom of darkness so that he is not Cordially in one that is Cordially in the other and consequently he is not by Profession in the one who is not by Profession past from the other He that professeth not such a faith as proveth men in Christs Kingdom professeth not so much as may prove him out of Satans And expresly it is said 1 John 3.8 10. He that committeth sin is of the Devil In this the Children of God are manifest the Children of the Devil he that doth not righteousness is not of God c. These passages will be further touched when we come to the Argument from the true visible Church Argum. 9. If it be the appointed use of all Christian Baptism to solemnize our marriage with Christ or to seal or confirm our union with him or ingraffing into him then must we baptize none that profess not justifying faith Because this is necessarily prerequisite and no others can protend to union marriage or ingraffing into Christ But the Antecedent is true Both Antecedent and consequence are evident in Gal. 3.27 28 29. For as many of you as have been baptized into Chrâ—st have put on Chrâ—st Ye are all one in Christ Jesus And if ye be Chrâ—sts then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs acccoding to promise Here 1 We see that it is not an accidental or separable thing for baptism to be our visible entrance into Christ our putting him on our admittance by solemnization into the state of Gods Children and heirs acording to promise For this is affirmed of all he baptized with true Christian Baptism If we be truely baptized we are baptized into Christ. If we we are baptized into Christ then are we Christ's and have put on Christ and are all one in Christ and are Abrahams seed and heirs according to promise If any object that the Apostle speaks this but of some of them even of the
Title No more therefore can be required of me but this Argument If such Infants can shew no good Title to such Baptism nor any for them then have they no Right to it But they can shew no good Title Ergo c. The Major is undeniable for Titulus est fundamentum Juris For the Minor I argue thus If they can shew any good Title it is either some grant of God written in his word or seeme not written But neither written nor not written therefore none at all Those sober persons that we have to do with will not plead an unwritten grant If any do so they must make it evident to a Minister before he can take it for currant If there be any written grant let them shew it for we know of none But yet we shall attempt the proof of the Negative and then examine the Arguments which are usually brought for the Affirmative If the Children of such Parents have such Right to Baptism it is either for their own sake i.e. some Title or ground in themselves 2. or for their immediate parents 3. or their Ancestors 4. or some Undertakers 5. or the Church These five grounds are pleaded by some And though our Question directly speaketh only of the second and therefore if any of the rest be proved it nothing makes against our Negative determination because we take it Reduplicativè of the children of such Parents as theirs yet we judge it most usefull to our main end that we touch upon each of these several Claims And 1. If the Infants of such Parents have any such Right from any thing in themselves it is either from somewhat proper to themselves and some others such as they or somewhat common to all Infants But neither of these Ergo 1. For the first Member I know nothing said but this Possibly they may have some seed of Grace in them we know not the contrary Answ. 1. As to us it s all one non esse non apparere we must have some Evidence of such a seed of Grace or else we cannot discern it 2. Else we must baptize the children of all or any Heathen or Infidel because for ought we know they may have some seed of Grace For the second Member it is thus argued by some God requireth nothing but Consent on our parts to our enterance into Covenant with him seeing it is a Covenant of free Grace but all Infants must by us be supposed to Consent therefore all must be supposed to have Right to Baptism The Major we grant The Minor they would thus prove It is a Rule in the Civil Law That it is suppâ—sed that a man will be willing of his own Good And another Rule there is That the Law supposeth a man to be what he ought to be till the contrary appear therefore Infants who make not the contrary appear are by us to be judged virtual Consenters or Accepters of the Covenant and consequently to be Baptized Answ. These Rules may hold in dealings between man and man about such things as Nature may both discern to be Good and desire but they cannot hold in the Case in hand 1. Because Nature cannot sufficiently discern the Desirableness of the Blessings of the Covenant compared with those things that must be renounced 2. Nor can it truly desire them without Grace 3. And the common Experience of the world telleth us that the most of men by far do not truly consent when they hear the terms of the Covenant This therefore may not be supposed For Natures Inclination to our own Good is no sufficient ground of the supposition Nor yet any Obligation that can lie on us to charitable thoughts of Infant 's Inclinations For it is one of the Principles of our Religion that Nature is so depraved as that every man is the great Enemy of himself consequentially as being inclined to the way of his own ruine till Christ the Physitian of Nature do work a Cure 4. And if this Argument would hold it would prove that all the Infants of the world have right to Baptism which is not to be supposed 5. Yea it wouâ—d prove that they have equal right with Christians which is yet more evidently false 6. Infants in such Covenants are reputed to be as their Paâ—â—nt who â—huse for them that cannot chuse for themselves If therefore the Parents consent not it is supposed that the Child consenâ—s not and no parent can truly consent for his childe that re useth for himself 7. The Covenant hath not only benefits on Gods part to be conferred but also duties on our part required and it cannot be supposed that all will faithfully perform such duties So much for the first pretended Title The second pretended Title of such Infants to Baptism is upon the account of the Interest of their immediate Parents and because this is both the proper subject of our question and also the great difficuly and most insisted on I shall say somewhat more to it And I prove the Negative thus 1. If notoriously ungodly Parents have no right themselves to the Benefits of the Covenant nor to be Baptized if it were now to do then cannot their children have a right upon the account of any interest of theirs But the Antecedent is true Therefore the validity of the consequence is evident in that no man can give that he hath none to give nor can we derive any Interest from him that hath none himself If any say he may have an Interest for his child that hath none for himself I Reply 1. Then the childe hath not his interest in and with the Parent nor as reputed a member of him 2. That Interest must be produced and proved I have not yet heard what it should be save what the next Objection intimates Why then may not the same be said of an Infidel that he may have a right for his child though none for himself It is objected that being himself baptized he once had right to Church-membership for himself and his child and though he hath lost this by Apostacy himself yet there is no reason why his child should be a loser by his fall Answ. 1. According to this objection the children of all Infidels Jews Turks and Heathens should have right for their Parents sake supposing those Parents to have been once baptized and now to be Apostates 2. But those children were either born before their Parents Apostacy or after If before then I grant the Parent loseth not the childs right by Apostacy because that right was fixed upon the child himself upon the account of the Parents interest And we may suppose him baptized thereupon and so there is no cause for a doubt For as the case is rare for a man that before was rightfully a Church-member to the outward appearance to Apostatize between the Birth and Baptism so I will purposely shun that Controversie Whether the child by such Apostacy loseth his right or whether a Baptized
word which is now in force to us Arg. 5. According to the definition of most of our Divines the outward washing alone without inward Grace is not Baptism Therefore if God give them right to the washing without the Grace he gives them not right to Baptism but this is but ad hominem I do but superficially touch these things 1. Because as I said the Arguments to Mr. Blake are full 2. Because I am informed that all this is granted with those Divines with whom I have debated this point and that they confess that none but sound Believers have engaged God in actual Covenant to them but only in the common conditional Covenant and consequently it is not by Covenant grant that the notoriously ungodly have right to Baptism but by other waies which we are next to speak to I am informed that this is all granted but then I must add that they yield that such men have no true proper right at all for such proper right is of the nature of the debitum the dueness of the Benefit So that a man may thence lay claim to it as his due And the right between God and Man we receive only by Gods moral Gift which is by some promise or grant by his word or revelation of his Will de debito habendi for this dueness or right is a moral thing and must come by his moral act such as among men we call political or civil But mark how the other two sorts of right differ from this That which follows Gods Physical disposal by Providence gives a man no proper right of dueness but only makes it non injustum and I think not propeâ—l positively justum that he should possess it as if I see a man ready to dye for cold and cast a garment on him only these two things follow first that is is not unjust for him to possess it 2. That it is unjust for any other to deprive him of it but this is no dueness or if he have any proper right it is after the possession and not before And then the third sort of right which ariseth from a precept to others concerning the manner of their duty is properly no right as not giving a due or title to the Benefit but only it makes my act of application to be just and him to be the Object of a just Act not just because of his Title from a gift of God but from a precept to me so that as the three Instruments differ Gift or Covenant Natural disposal and Precept so do these three sorts of right differ the first only being debitum the second non injustum the third justum and the Subject of the third is but my act and not the person who is the Object It is just that I obey God and so do such an Act on him Having said thus much for preparation I shall anon speak more particularly to the two later sorts of right but first we shall touch briefly the third pretended title which some insist on of such Infants proper right to baptism The third was upon the account of their Ancestors true faith though the immediate Parents weee notoriously ungodly They that plead this title will not prove it good 2. I thus disprove it Agrum 1. If the Promise to the faithfull and their Seed to many generations doth necessarily suppose an uninterrupted succession of faithful Progenitors of that seed then that promise gives no right to the Infants of notoriously ungodly Parents But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent The Consequent I suppose to be manifested before the Antecedent I prove by these following Arguments 1. If the promise suppose not an uninterrupted succession of faithful Progenitors then by virtue of the Promise to Noah all the world have Right to baptism But the Consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent If they urge the words of the second Commandment it is certain that it is not a thousand generations since Noah This Question is commonly put to our Brethren in this case Where shall we stop and on what grounds shall we stop if it extend not to all the world and they answer variously One reverend Brother Mr. Blake on the Covenant pag. 140. saith He knows few that say the Predecessor gives right without the immediate Parent But all concur in a joint way to communicate a Covenant Interest This yields the necessity of a non-intercision Others say first out of Calvin and Ames Vbi non prorsus interciditur Christianismi professio ubi praesumuntur esse Christiani to which I answer If it be a profession of Christianity properly so called then the right may come by the immediate parent and there is no intercision But if it be in a profession equivocally so called that is such as is not a probable sign of the thing professed then I suppose I have proved that such a profession is indeed not a profession gives no title and such is that of every notorious ungodly parent 2. It is answered by others that it must be by some Ancestors alive that will undertake their education To which I reply then the Ancestor gives him not a right as an Ancestor but as an Vndertaker of which more anon though he be no fitter to be an Undertaker than another Others say that the children of Christians known or presumed to be such living or dead may baptized Repl. Then all the children under the Turks whose Ancestors were known Christians may be baptized and why not all the world when Noah and Adam were known to be in Covenant or all this Nation if they had been Heathens this hundred years because their Ancestors were justly presumed to be Christians Argum. 2. In the common sense of such a Covenant amongst men it would necessarily suppose an uninterrupted succession of faithfull Progenitors that make no forfeiture before any right can be conveyed to their issue therefore it must be so interpreted in our present case seeing we must not go from the known use or sense of words without some apparent reason whereof here is none that I see And the Antecedent is a known case If a Prince do convey certain priviledges Honors to a man and his Heirs and Posterity for ever this word certainly implies this supposition or condition that neither he nor any after him do make a forfeiture for if they turn Traytors the Covenant is broke the Grant is void and they cannot by that convey any such right to Posterity Argum. 3. If the Promise aforesaid did not imply a necessary non-interruption of faithfull Progenitors then the Promise and threatning could not be verified but the Consequent is not to be admitted therefore the Consequence is plain in that as the Promise is to many generations of those that love God and keep his Commandments so the Threatning is that he will visit the sins of the Fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of c. Exod. 20.34 where God
we have no natural capacity of judging but according to evidence and we have no evidence for a certain judgement concerning the estate of another mans heart 2. I have elsewhere made it appear and more abundantly might easily do that when God mentioneth any person qualified with such a Qualification which to us is uncertain to be the object of our Act his meaning is that we should rationally and charitably judge of men according to evidence whether they are such or no and so take them and use them accordingly the Apparere being here as the Esse to us So when he bids us if a Brother wrong us oft and oft say It repenteth me forgive him it is all one with that other If he repent forgive him We know not certainly whether he repent or not but we must take him probably to repent that giveth us the evidence of a probable profession So if we are to baptize those that repent and believe or their children how can we judge of them but by a probable profession 4. It is therefore granted that though such a degree of Ungodliness as is consistent with sincere Godliness be Notorious yet that 's not the subject of our Question for that doth not denominate a man ungodly seeing it is from the predominant part that he must be denominated The Doubt remaineth therefoâ—e abouâ— Ungodliness in the proper sense Notorious as is before explained And I shall now defend the Negative as followâ—th Arg. 1. We have no word of God commanding or Authorizing us to baptize the children of the notoriously ungodly as theirs Therfore is it not our duty or lawfull What command or warrant is pretended from Scripture we shall examine anon Arg. 2. We may not baptâ—ze them who are Notoriously without true Covenant Right to Baptism But such are the children of notorious ungodly Parents Ergo. The Minor is proved before the Major needs no proof I think We should give each his Right Arg. 3. If it be the very reason why we must Baptize the Ungodly and theâ—r Seed who profess Godliness because that by professing it they seem probably to be godly then must we not baptize them who do not seem probably to be godly or if you had rather to be true Believers But the Antecedent is true Therefore so is the Consequent For the Antecedent I have said enough for it to Mr. Blake If it were not propter fidem significandam that profession were required but propter se as the condition of the Covenant then 1. God would not have said He that believeth and is baptized c. And if thou believe with all thy heart thou mayst be baptized and Repent and be baptized c. but rather if thou wilt but say thou believest thou mayst be baptized c. 2. And then all that profess should be justified For all that be in the Mutual Covenant with God actually are justified 3. And then such profession would be of flat necessity to Salvation as well as faith which it is not but on supposition of Opportunity a Call c. I think I may take it for granted that Profession is required sub ratione signi as a sign of the thing professed nor can any man I think give a better reason of its necessity though another after this may be because God will have the outward man to serve him by thus signifying by its operations what are the Elicite Acts and dispositions of the Will The Consequence of the foresaid Major proposition is past doubt I suppose If any think otherwise the next Argument may rectifie them Argu. 4. He that is not to be judged a credible professed Christian or the child of such is not the just object of our act of baptizing Or We ought to baptize none but those whom we should judge true professed Christians and their children But the notoriously Ungodly are not to be judged true professed Christians nor their Children the Children of such therefore not to be baptized As the word Profession signifieth a pretended discovering of the mind with an intention to deceive so I confess it may be called a profession Physically or Metaphysically true But it is not this natural Truth that we here mean nor yet do I stretch the word so high as to comprehend the full gradual correspondency of the Act to the Object but I plainly mean a Moral Truth opposed to a Lye or Falshood And being speaking about moral-Legal things the terms must be necessarily understood according to the Subject So that it were proper in this Case If I simply maintained that such are Not Professors of Christianity at all because in a moral Law-sense they are not such For no man is to give credit to a notorious lye so to speak is equal to silence as to any obligation that it can lay upon another either to believe him or to use him as one that is believed My meaning therefore is that we are not to baptize that man or his child upon a profession which is notoriously false so that our selves and the Congregation do certainly know or have sufficient Reasons to be confident that the man doth lye For the proof of the Minor which I know will be denied thus I prove it If either the Profession be evidently but Equivocally called a true Profession or the Christianity professed be but equivocally called Christianâ—ty then the notoriously ungodly are not to be judged true professed Christans But the one of these is so with all notoriously ungodly persons Ergo. The Major is past doubt seing there must be the true profession of true Christianity that must justly denominate a man at age a true Professor of Christianity If he notoriously want the first he is morally no Professor If he want the later he professeth not â—hristianity To prove the Minor we will begin with the later We speak not now of any Accidentals that pertain not to the Being but tend only to the well-Being of a Christian. Now I hope it is past controversie among us all that it is essential to our Christianity that it be in the Intellect and Will whatever we say of the outward Man and for the Intellect that we believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost And it is essential to our believing in God that we believe him to be our Creator Chief Ruler and chief End and Happiness And to believe in the Son Essentially containeth a believing that he is Jesus Christ our Lord that is that he is the Redeemer of the world who shed his blood to save his people from their sins by pardon and sanctification and who will raise them from the dead and judge them to everlasting Blessedness and who is their Lord and Ruler on this ground and to this end to believe in the Holy Ghost essentially containeth a believing that his Testimony of Christ was true and that he is the Sanctifier of those that shall be saved It is as much essential to Christianity to consent that
and Soul too than with the Soul alone this puts us upon a necessity of doing the more in a separation by Church power than else we should do Arg. 9. If no Children of notorious ungodly parents have Right to Baptism 1. then is their Baptism Null 2. And then ours is Null which we received on supposition of the Right of such parents And 3. then must many be baptized again For if Ministers had no power to do it it must needs be Null The determination of this Question about the nullity of Baptism depends upon the true definition of Baptism some only put Gods part and the Ministers into the definition and not the receivers act of profession covenanting or self-resigning to Christ taking him to be no Agent in the Essentials of the Ordinance but a recipient and that the Acts on his part are only Integrals or Duties necessary to his participation of the benefits of the Covenant If this definition hold most common with our Divines then the resolution is most easie For the Minister performed all that was essentiall to Baptism And therefore that which is undone is only the mans duty on his own or childs behalf that which was well done as to the act is not to be done again that is the Ministerial Baptism though sinfully misapplyed but that which was undone that is 1. the persons duty 2. and thereupon Gods Grant actually of the benefits According to this definition of baptism if through error a Pagan be baptized in the true form it is not Null as to that form of the Ordinance nor to be done again when he is converted but only his own duty was Null and to be done again For example if one that cannot speak our Language should be thought to profess faith in Christ by signs and be baptized thereupon and it after appear that it was no such profession but contrary so if we should mistake a Pagans child for a Christians I pretend not to decide the Question Whether this be the rightest definition of Baptism or best Answer to the present Doubt but if this hold as it is common all is clear against the pretended Nullity or re-baptizing 2. If it hold not let the Objectors answer themselves who say that a Dogmatical faith gives right to Baptism We have abundance of people that have not so much as a Dogmatical Faith that know not who Christ is nor what he hath done nor are they in most places since the Directory was in use called to profess their faith when they offer their children to Baptism Are the children of these persons to be re-baptized or themselves if it were their case or is the Administration of the Lords Supper to such a Nullity or only unprofitable I have had the aged here that have said Christ the Son of God was the Sun in the Firmament yet they have had both Sacraments Answer this for your selves 3. But suppose the persons covenanting be essential to Baptism let us so far advantage the Objectors as to deal with them on that ground Answ. 1. I distinguish between the Nullity of the external part commonly called Baptism containing the Ministerial Administration and the persons Reception of the Water and Washing with his profession or external covenant to God And the Nullity of Gods Engagement or Covenant to the sinner actually and so of the sinners Reception of the Benefits of Baptism Among which Benefits I distinguish the special and spiritual as pardon Adoption c. from the more common and external such as are the external Priviledges of the Visible Church Whereupon I answer first to the Matter in these following Propositions and then to the Argument as in form Prâ—po 1. If any essential part of the exterior Ordinance be wanting then it is Null As if the party he not more or less washed If he be not baptized into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost at least implicitely if not by full Verbal expression If the party use but the bare name of God while he professeth or openly discovereth that it is not indeed God the Father Son or Holy Ghost that he meaneth If he openly put in any exception against any essential part of the Christian Faith or Covenant as to say I will only be pardoned by Christ but not sanctified then I conceive it is no Baptism But if there be all the exterior Essentials there the exterior Baptism is not Null nor to be repeated 2. The foresaid exterior Baptism is effectual to the engaging or obliging of the person so baptized And so his own part of the Covenant is not Null A Dissembling promise bindeth the Promiser in Law for his dissimulation cannot hinder his own Obligation though it may anothers Nemini debetur commodum ex proprio delicto 3. But if there be not sincerity in the Covenanter beyond all this his Baptism is not available to the pardon of his sin or to convey to him a Râ—ght from God in any of the Covenant benefits directly as given to him common or special 4. Nor should the Minister or People believe this man if by Notorious Ungodliness he give them reason to take his present Profession to be false and himself now to dissemble 5. But yet seeing a Natural Profession it is though false and the falshood is not declared by him at that time in the Ordinance but disclaimed but only is declared before he comes thither therefore it seems to me that there is the whole external Essence of Baptism and therefore it is not Null nor to be Repeated But if that person do afterward come to the sense of his own Dissimulation and of the want of Truth in his Profession and Covenanting he is to do then that which he did omit before that is to Covenant Truly but not that which he did perform before that is to be externally Baptized Such a person therefore should in the face of the Congregation when he comes to Repentance bewail with the rest of the sins of his life that falseness in the Baptismal Covenant and there unfeignedly renew it To which end among others in the antient Churches it was usual in Confirmation to renew the Covenant more solemnly where any flaw was found in the Baptism which yet did not prove a Nullity 6. And for external Church Priviledges I conceive that as God doth not by Covenant give this person a right to them so it is the Ministers and Peoples Duty to deny them to the Parent himself while he continueth notoriously ungodly and the Error of wrong baptizing him or continuing him in the Church till now will not oblige them to continue communion with him But yet being admitted by Baptism he should be solemnly cast out But if the Guides of the Church be faulty and will not cast him out then must the people distinguâ—sh between communion with him as a Christian in general and as a member of that particular Church as also between communion Moral and meerly Natural and
to Execute without Judgement and yet this is no denial of the Authority of a Judge So much to the matter of this Argument And now in Sum to the Argument as in Form 1. I deny the first Consequence if it speak of the Nullity of the External Baptism and not only of the Effect and of Gods Engagement to them 2. And consequently I deny the two later Consequences 3. Yea if our Parents Infant-Baptism were null it followeth not that so is their childrens which they had on their account For our Parents might get a Personal Right in Christ and the Covenant after their Baptism before they presented us in Baptism though themselves had not been Baptized 4. And I believe it will be no easie matter to prove that our Parents any or many at least were notoriously ungodly at our birth 5. Lastly if all this satisfie not but any man will yet needs believe that it is an unavoidable consequence of our Doctrine that The Baptism of the Infants of Notoriously Ungodly Parents is null though I am not of hâ—s minde yet I think it is a less dangerous opinion and less improbable then theirs whom we now oppose I know no such great ill effects it would have if a man that mistakingly did suppose his Baptism Null to satisfie his Conscience were baptized again without denying the baptism of Infants or any unpeaceable disturbing of the Church in the management thereof I confess I never had any Damning or Excommunicating thoughts in my mind against Cyprian Firmilian and the rest of the African Bishops and Churches who rebaptized those that were baptized by Hereticks and in Council determined it necessary and were so zealous for it And though while I captivated my judgement to a Party and to admired Persons I embraced the new Exposition of Acts 19. which Beza thankfully professeth to have received from Marúixius who as some say was the first Inventer of it yet I must confess that both before I knew what other men held and since I better know who expound it otherwise and on what grounds I can no longer think that is the meaning of the Text especially when I impartially peruse the words themselves Calvin did not think that the 5th versâ— was Paul's words of John's Hearers but Luke's words of Paul's Hearers and had no way to avoid the Exposition which admitted their rebaptizing but by supposing that Paul did not Baptize them again with Water but with the Holy Ghost only and that of that the fifth verse is meant I never read that John Baptist did Baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus expresly and denominatively but only as Paul here speaks that they should believe on him that should come after whom Paul here Expositorily denominateth the Lord Jesus And the words When they heard this seem to me plainly to refer to Paul's saying as the thing which they heard Also the Connexion of the fifth verse to the sixth shews it For else there is no reason given of Pauls proceeding to that Imposition of Hands nor any satisfaction to the doubt at which he stuck or which he propounded And I confess if I must be swayed by men I had rather think well of the judgment of the Fathers and Church of all Ages who for ought I find do all that have wrote of it with one consent place a greater difference then we do between John's Baptism and Christs and did expound this Text so as to assert that these 12 Disciples were baptized again by Paul or on his Preaching And for that great and unanswerable Argument wherewith Beza and others do seek to maintain the necessity of their sense I confess it rather perswades me to the contrary For whereas they imagine it intolerable for us to conclude or think that Christ was not Baptized with Christian Baptism which himself did institute or command I must needs say I think it much more probable that he was not seeing the Christ an Baptism is Essentially a Covenanting and Sealing of our Covenant with God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as our Creator Redeemer and Sanctifier and appointed to be Gods Seal of his washing away our sins by Christs blood all which I know Christ was not capable of And I suppose it more credible that Christ himself should be the Instituter of such an Evangelical Ordinance than John and that he came to fulfill all Legal Righteousness rather than that Evangelical Righteousness which consisteth in obeying himself by doing those things which he hath appointed to redeemed sinners as such for their recovery But of this let every man judge as he is illuminated If I err my danger and deserved reproach I think is no greater than the Ancient Fathers and the Church for so many hundred years that were of the same mind Even they that were nearer to that Age when these matters of Fact were done But for our case its apparent there 's no need of Re-baptizing for there is no Nullity I have done with the Argument but yet there is one Question more that may not be passed over though but on the by and that is Whether the Baptism of all those persons be not Null and they to be Re-baptized who were baptized by such as were Notoriously or Secretly unordained men and no true Ministers To which I only say in brief No 1. If they were not known to be no Ministers it was no fault of ours we waited in Gods appointed way for his Ordinances and therefore though they were sins to them they are valid blessings to us that were not guilty 2. If they were Notoriously no Ministers though it might be our Parents sin that we were presented to such for Baptism yet it is not Null For in these Relations these Instruments are not Essential to the Relation nor to the Ordinance at all Though I would be loth as the Fathers and Papists did to allow a Lay person yea a woman saith Tertullian to baptize in case of Necessity yet should I not be very hasty to Re-baptize such supposinig that they had all the substance of the Ordinance as being baptized into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Argu. 10. Whoever ought in Duty to dedicate his Child to God in the holy Covenant ought also to Baptize him But all notorious ungodly men ought so to dedicate their children to God Ergo c. Answ. I grant the Conclusion It is every mans duty on earth that hears the Gospel to be baptized and give up his children if he have any to Christ in Baptism that is to believe and consent to the Covenant of Grace and so to be baptized But it followeth not that it is their Duty to be Externally Baptized without Faith and such Consent 2. Note also that this Argument as well proves that all the Children of persecuting Heathens should be baptized as ungodly pretended Christians For it is their Duty too Object But when they present their Children they do their Duty though but part
the Infant to Baptism meerly because the Parents are excluded from one or more particular Churches because Baptism doth necessarily and directly enter them among the number of Christians but not into any one particular Church And therefore I will not forbid or disswade the baptizing of such Prâ—position 2. Yet do I take it to be no duty of mine to baptize any such more than any other Ministers further than I have a special Call or Reason For Example Here live some hundreds in this Parish that upon publike Proposal Whether they take me for their Pastor and themselves for members of this Church do disown it or not own it when they are told that their owning or declaring it shall be taken as the sign to know it I take my self no more bound to baptize their children than any strangers else For I cannot be their Pastor whether they will or not nor can I take them for any special charge of mine that will not take themselves to be so nor take me for their Pastor Therefore they can no more blame me than any stranger if I refuse to baptize their children Though yet I deny not their right to Baptism I am not bound to baptize all the children in the Countrey and therefore not theirs Proposition 3. It ordinarily falls out that a Minister hath more work to do in his own special charge than five men are able to do So that he cannot bestow so much time as to Baptize the children of others and to take an account of them concerning their Faith or Profession such as is more necessary from strangers and refusers of Discipline than others without neglecting some duty to his own Charge the while While I am speaking to them there are twenty poor souls of my own Charge that call for my help And I am more strictly tied to those of my special charge than to others Proposition 4. Yet in case that for the avoiding of offence or for an advantage to win them to a better temper or the like reason I see any special cause for it I doubt not but I must rather omit a lesser duty to my own Charge than a greater to others Proposition 5. If a man reject Church-communion or withdraw himself from one Church upon a reason common to all Churches as Incorporated as for Example because he will not be under any Discipline he gives us reason to question his very Christianity And therefore we must call him to account on what grounds he doth this And if the grounds are found such as are consistent with Christianity we may not deny the right of his Infants to Baptism though our selves may have no Call to baptize them Proposition 6. If the Parents do either produce no Title to the baptizing of their child that is do not seem Christians or Godly Or if they give us grounds of a violent presumption that their profession is false and counterfeit in either of these cases as we are to exclude them from Christian communion so are we to refuse the baptizing of their children that is to suspend both till such a Title be shewed or till the grounds of that strong presumption be removed Although we may not declare such persons to be no members of the universal Church nor absolutely deny their children to have any Right in the Covenant or fundamentally and remotely to Baptism as not being certain that their Parents are in a Graceless ungodly state This last Proposition is it that I am now to give my Reasons of For indeed it is a matter of such exceeding difficulty to conclude another man to be certainly graceless that it is not one of multitudes nay it is but few of the commonly scandalous gross sinners that we should be able to prove it by which I desire the Cesorious well to consider of But yet a strong presumption we may have of more that they are graceless and thereupon may suspend them and their Children as is said before Arg. 1. If the Parent have given just cause for us to question his own Christianity and Right to Christian communion thereupon then hath he given us sufficient cause to question his childs right to Baptism and so to suspend the baptizing it But the Antecedent is confessed For our dissenting Brethren in this case will suspend yea excommunicate the Parent Ergo The reason of the Consequence is clear in that the Right of the Infant to Baptism is meerly on the Parents account and on supposition of his Right to Membership of the Universal Church If therefore his Right be justly questioned and â—e suspended then the Infants Right must be questioned and it suspended on the same ground For Baptism Sealeth a right of Union and putteth into actual communion of the Body Catholick Argum. 2. We ought not to dispense Gods Seals and Church-Priviledges to any without a produced Title Else we must give them to all that we can But for the baptism of such mens children as are aforementioned there can be or is no Title produced Ergo. The Major is further clear in that Non esse non Apparere are to us all one For it must be discernable to us by some evidence or else it is naturally impossible for us to know it For the Minor its clear that if the Parents Title to membership be questionable the Infants is so too because the ground is the same and it is from the Parent that the Infant must derive it and no man can give that which he hath not Argum 3. In civil Administrations and according to the Rules of right Reason a very high probability commonly called Violenta Praesumptio sufficeth to sentence and execution especially when it is but in the withdrawing or suspending of a Priviledge Therefore it must be so here Because 1. here is no reason to put a difference 2. Because our distance from other mens hearts doth in most cases make us uncapable of more Impenitency and â—nfidelity lie within and we cannot know them but by their signs and fruits And 3. It is their fault in giving occasion of such presumption and in being so like the ungodly if we deny them the Priviledges of the Godly and not our fault The Antecedent is clearly known If a man be known to bear another malice and be found standing by him with a bloody sword the person being murdered the Judge will justly condemn him for the murder though yet it be not absolutely certain that he did it If a man be found nudus in lecto cum nuda he shall be judged a Fornicator or Adulterer though it be uncertain So in other cases Argum. 4. If such violent presumption must not stand for sufficient proof for such suspension of parent and child then all Discipline and all civil justice if it be not so there will be eluded For then as no vice almost or but few will be punished among men nor few men have right so almost no ungodly or scandalous sinners or few that