Donatists afterward who upon such grounds made a separation from the Church of God Against the Donatists doth St. Augustin dispute as did St. Cyprian before him against the Novatians Note here that often in his books De Bapt. contra Donatist contra Crescon Gram. lib. 2. cap. 15. doth St. Austin cite an Authority out of Cyprian lib de lapsis to prove the conclusion that we have in hand Nos non communicare peccatis aliorum etiamsi cum iis in Sacramentorum communione maneamus and set up select Congregations of their own utterly condemning those Churches and Assemblies who admitted of any such to the Communion of the Church whom they accounted fit to be suspended from the Sacrament and the society of the faithfull That it doth necessarily cast many Christians upon inextricable difficulties and discomforts is evident in this That if it be unlawfull to receiv the Sacramant in a mixt Assembly Then it may fall out that some Christians may for ever be deprived of that Ordinance and so want that comfort both in life and death which they might have by it For why some have not liberty nor means of separation and seeking elsewhere ex gr Wives children servants which are under the Covert and command of their Husbands Parents Masters Some again are shut up in prison others banished or confined to such a place where this Doctrine is not beleeved nor is that Sacrament any where to be had but in the Parochiall Assemblies of that Place and People Now for all such to be deprived of the Sacrament and of the comfort which cometh by it is a matter of such inconvenience that it cannot in any probability be allowed as an Order and Appointment of Christ Consequently I conclude That the Opinion which denyeth it lawfull for a Christian to communicate in a mixt Assembly is in all probability erroneous and not to be received This also may be cast in to make up full weight and measure That we find in the Gospel our Blessed Saviour not excluding Iudas from the Passover even when he knew that he had conspired with the Priests to betray him Nor do any of the Disciples when our Saviour told them Yee are not all clean One of you shall betray me not any of them do call upon Christ to turn out the Traitour no not when by the Sopp given to Judas Christ had manifested him to be the man Wher-in if the Apostles were to blame so it may be these men may think as not sufficiently at that time carefull to have an Holy Communion by separating the pretious from the vile yet certainly our blessed Saviour did not at all transgress the Rule of Holiness Nor would he have permitted Iudas to sit so neer them if any of them might therby fail of Receiving the Benefit that might upon self-preparation be justly expected from that Sacrament Nor do I know what can be excepted against this unless any would deny the Necessity of morall cleanness to the preparing and fitting of the Jews for the worthy receiving of the Passover or boldly avouch that nothing more was required of them but a care of Ceremoniall purity and legall purifications of the Flesh which I suppose is an opinion so gross and absurd that none of understanding would own it and avouch it We read Hezekiah urging the Preparation of the Heart as an Argument to prevail with God to pardon the neglect of Ceremoniall purification which had been of no force at all if those Purifications had not been required only in the way of signification and commonefaction to put them in mind of that spirituall and morall duty the Preparation of Heart If God took any pleasure in washing the hands and scouring the flesh why doth our Saviour blame the Pharisees who were but too diligent and observant of their Ceremonies No no Evident it is that Sacrifices and Ceremonies were acceptable only as Institutions and Admonitions of Morall Duties As at other times So in their Preparation of themselves to the Holy Sacrament Nor was it enough for Iudas that he was clean as farr as the water could reach no not enough that his feet were washed if washed they were by Christ Since the Heart was full of covetousnes and divelish intentions Whose uncleanness might it be an hinderance to the Residue in receiving the Benefit of the Sacrament Can we with reason beleev that our Saviour would not have shutt him out and so have taught them upon such an occasion the Necessity of what these men call for with so much importunity I close up all in a word Since neither Scripture nor Reason do conclude it unlawfull Nay since the Scripture being silent in the cause neither prohibiting nor reprehending Reason doth draw us to conclude against the opinion of these men I conclude It is not sinfull for a Christian to receiv the Sacrament in a mixt Assembly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Appendix Extracted out of a Responsary Letter To your two Questions propounded in the close of the Letter I return this breef Answer for your satisfaction To the first viz. Whether it be not a sinn in the Minister to deliver the Sacrament to him that is scandalous i. e. to him who having been such hath not as yet reconciled himself to God and the Church by publik evidences of his Repentance I cannot admit the Affirmative for a Truth viz. It is sin in him except with these limitations 1. When ther is power in the Hand of the Minister to keep such men off and to bring them to the Testification of their Repentance 2. Where it is evident to the Minister that the man hath not reconciled himself to God and the Congregation 3. When the man is indeed scandalous i. e. notoriously known to have given offence But the case is otherwise when either the Minister hath not power in his hand or when he is not certain of the Mans Non-Repentance and Non-Reconciliation Or thirdly when the man is not indeed scandalous I say Not indeed Because some men account some things to be scandalous which indeed are not Ther is a scandal to a weak brother in the want of a charitable use of Christian Liberty Ther is a scandal to them that are without This latter is only that scandal that deserveth repulse from the Communion Not the other To the second viz Whether it be not a sinn in the People to communicate with any such i. e. To receiv the Communion in the Society of such a Minister and such a scandalous Brother I say as before I cannot affirm it sinfull except with these limitations 1. When it is evident to the Christian that such a person is indeed scandalous and hath not reconciled himself 2. When it is in the liberty of the Communicant to chuse or refuse such company But the case is otherwise when it is not evident to him that the other hath not reconciled himself or when it is not in the liberty of the Comunicant to refuse Now as it is not in the liberty of the Christian saving the Duty that he oweth to God to abstein altogether from the Sacrament So neither is it in his liberty saving his duty that he oweth to the Magistrat to abstain from that Congregation wher-of by vertue of his house and Habitation he is known to be a Member At the Communion of the sick peradventure he may forbear from joining in society with such if they should desire Not so from the publick Congregation FINIS Imprimatur CHARLES HERLE
when he goeth up to the Table of the Lord He neither approveth of them nay is greeved for the dis-order Whether is he defiled To this I answer Negatively It is not alway sinfull for a private Christian to receiv the Sacrament in the company of them that are unworthy Communicants nay worthy of Excommunication Not alway I say Because I list not to plead the cause of them who for some private respects do voluntarily chuse the Society of some wicked persons when it is in their liberty to make a better choice But where it is not As it is not in the choice of Parishioners to refuse their Parish Church to which by the just law of the Magistrate they are bound for Order sake Now that in this case it is not sinfull I prove by these Arguments The first Argument VVHat no text of Scripture hath manifested to be unlawfull that is not sinfull For in as much as Sin is the Transgression of the law what is not unlawfull that is not sinfull And if the text of Scripture doth not manifest a thing unlawfull who shall dare to do it That no â—ext of Scripture hath manifested it unlawfull for a private Christian in this case to come in the company of the unworthy it is evidenced by this That ther is neither any text of Prohibition to forbid it nor any text of Reprehension that hath blamed those that have done it Consequent-ly it is not by text of Scripture manifested to be unlawfull and therfore not sinfull As we conclude that lawfull that by text is either commanded or commended So that unlawfull that is either prohibited or reproved 1. No text of Scripture hath forbidden it Not that of Cor. 5.11 No not in that new translation which some put in capitall letters as if ther were some great mystery in it NOT TO BE MIXT TOGETHER Truth it is ther is a Prohibition directed to the Church of Corinth and it pertaineth to all the members ther-of The Prohibition is to them Not to keep company with scandalous Christians no not to eat with such a one But it is manifest that this Prohibition is not touching Sacred but civill Society That company-keeping is in the Citty not in the Church That eating is at their own Table not at the Table of the Lord. Th' Apostle had written to them a former Epistle Not to keep company with Fornicators and other scandalous persons Fain he would that Christians should not only forbear such sinfull courses but even the company of them that were therwith-all defiled This his Epistle and his charge in it he doth now interpret shewing That he did not intend to forbid them all company or society with those of that ill-name which were not of the Church This had been to have shut them up in a cloister to have banished them out of the world to have imposed upon them an impossibility so St. Chrysostome you must seek another world to live in seeing the â—ase of Gods people in this world is as of Roses among thorns they cannot but live among the wicked But that if ther were any professed Christians that yet had not reformed those evill courses but still lived in the usuall practise of them with such a one they must have no familiarity No not to eat with them So then The eating forbidden is such as is not forbidden in Relation to men of the world Now with the men of the world they never had any company at the Table of the Lord Consequent-ly the text doth not respect that sacred Communion nor their joining with the scandalous in that sacred Action This phrase Eat not with him is the same in effect with that of 2 Joh. 10. Receiv him not into your House It was altogether unlawfull for the Corinths to invite such a scandalous Brother to their houses or to shew him any courtesie yea I suppose the phrase doth reach further even to refuse his invitation q. d. Neither invite him to eat with you nor accept of any invitation to eat with him that so all shew of Familiarity betwixt him and you may be avoided Add this It cannot be understood of that holy Society which is among Christians at the Lords Table beâ—ause that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No not to eat intimateth the least familiarity that may be For so is the Argument 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not to keep company no nor to eat But in that Holy society which Christians have one with another in the House of God this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To eat together is the greatest Whence it is that the aggravation of the Punishment of obstinate persons doth runn in a contrary course 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are first shut out from the Table of the Lord and afterward from the Houses and Tables of Christians So then this text of Cor. 5. not respecting the familiarity and company of them that come to the Lords Table cannot be alledged to prove it unlawfull and sinfull for a Christian to be found in company and to go along with the wicked to the Table of the Lord. Nor that of 2 Thess 3.14 The words are these If any man obey not our word by this Epistle Note that man and â—ave no company with him that he may be ashamed Here it is forbidden to have company with a brother that walketh disorderly So in vers 6. viz. He speaks of them that were idle and busi-bodyes vers 11. The Christians of Thessalonica were most of them Artisans and Labourers and for those to live idly out of a Calling was a dis-orderly walking and those the Apostle would have to be punished The punishment is set down ver 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To withdraw themselves from him and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To keep no company with him Now this company cannot be understood of the holy Communion because it is subjoined to the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Note that man Calvin Beza Bullinger Marlorat which by divers Godly and Learned is interpreted the Act of Excommunication q. d. Excommunicate him and have no company with Him Put him out of the Church yea out of all Civill familiarity Neither invite him to house nor willingly be yee found in his company Which is yet more manifest if we consider that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to set such a note upon Him as may make him ashamed Now that could not be by forbearing to communicate in his company In very deed who should forbear Is not the Precept directed to the whol Church Should they all forbear the Communion and leav him alone at it Ridiculum No they must all perform their duty each in his place The Church-officers must set a note upon him i. e. Denounce him as an unworthy member of the Church unfit to be admitted not only to the Table of the Lord but even unfit to be admitted to any familiarity and society with them The Church-members must do accordingly i. e. forbear all
A MODERATE ANSWER To these two QVESTIONS 1. Whether ther be sufficient Ground in Scripture to warrant the Conscience of a Christian to present his Infants to the Sacrament of Baptism 2. Whether it be not sinfull for a Christian to receiv the Sacrament in a mixt Assembly Prepared for the Resolution of a Friend And now Presented to the publick view of all for the satisfaction of them who desire to walk in the Ancient and long-approved way of Truth and Holiness By T.B. B.D. EPH. 4. VER 1.2.3 I therfore the Prisoner of the Lord beseech you that yee walk worthy of the Vocation wherwith ye are called with all LOWLINES and MEEKNES with long-suffering forbearing one another in LOVE endeavouring to keep the UNITY of the Spirit in the Bond of PEACE LONDON Printed by I.N. for Abel Roper at the signe of the Sunne over against S. Dunstans Church in Fleet-street 1645. YOu desire mine opinion touching these two Questions 1. Whether there be sufficient Ground in the Scripture to warrant the conscience of a Christian to present his Infants to the Sacrament of Baptism with an expectation of Benefit that may accrew unto them by it 2 Whether it be not sinfull for a Christian to receive the Sacrament in a mixt Assembly I shall endeavour to give Answer to them both for the satisfying of your conscience So that you turn not Conscience into Will and Iudgement into Affection The meek yea only the meek will the Lord guid in judgement and teach his wâ—y The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him he will shew them his Covenant Psal 25. The Answer to the first Question AS for the first I answer affirmatively There is sufficient Ground in that Scripture to warrant the conscience of a Christian to present his Infants to the Sacrament of Baptism with an expectation of Benefit that may accrew unto them by it wherein I observe two particulars 1. Whether the Parent so doing may be excused from sinning through an unwarrantable use and Application of Gods Ordinance 2. Whether he may in the use thereof expect any Benefit accrewing to the Infant These two are different in their own Nature and require either of them severall Grounds of Satisfaction For tho if it be sinfull for the Parent to bring his Infants to Baptism he can expect no good for them by it In as much as no man may expect good to come from what is evill yet tho it be not sinfull in the Parent it will not follow that Good may be expected by it But I hold the Affirmative part of Both to be the Truth of God The first Argument This I build upon the words of our blessed Saviour in Mat. 19.14 Suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto me Children The children here mâ—ntioned were Infants such as men do hold in their arms The text saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that He took them up in his arms c. Where we see that our Saviour was highly displeased with his Disciples who had rebuked the Parents for bringing their children to Christ Hence I argue Christs justification of what is done doth presuppose the lawfulnesse of the thing It was therfore lawfull for the Parents to bring their children to Christ to receiv his Blessing if lawfull for them so also for others for all Consequently even for us there is a sufficient warrant to present our Infants to Christ that they may receiv his blessing You will reply That tho it be lawfull to present Infants to Christ to receiv his blessing yet not therfore lawfull to present them to Baptism I admit your reply but rejoin thus If lawfull to present them to Christ for his blessing Then lawfull to present them to him in his Ordinances in which that blessing is to be expected This I suppose will stand good That whosoever might be welcom to Christ in his person were he here upon earth may be admitted to his Ordinances in which he is present by the power of his Spirit For who doubteth but that he hath set up his Ordinances in the Church for this end that in them he might meet those of his who desire to draw neer unto Him and by these Ordinances as by a Mean appointed for that end convey to them that Blessing and Grace which were he present with us in the flesh he would bestow upon them This being laid down for a Ground I build upon it thus but ther is none other of Christs Ordinances in which and by which a Christian can present his Infants to Christ with expectation of his Blessing excepting this of Baptism Consequently either by Baptism they may be presented to Christ for his blessing or not at all If not at all Either Christs presence in his Ordinances is not equivalent to his Corporall presence or some prohibition hath in a speciall maner put in a Barr to keep them off from his Ordinances which did not keep them of from him when here upon earth If any such there be let it be named if not Then is ther a sufficient ground to warrant the Parents bringing their children to Christ in his Ordinances and particularly in Baptism that ther-in they may expect the Benefit of Christs Benediction I know what hath been objected viz. That ther is a Barr to hinder Infants implyed in thes texts Math. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 Act. 8.36 from whence this Argument is framed without Faith none may be baptised Infants want Faith and therfore They may not be baptised And then To what purpose should they be presented to that Sacrament To which I answer That granting the Assumption to be true tho if a man deny it as some do Vide Greg. Decretal lib. 3. cap. 3. De Baptismo ejus effectu I see not how it can be proved But I say let it be granted that Infants have not Faith The Proposition is utterly fals viz. That without Faith none may be baptised For neither do the texts prove it and besides ther is good reason against it 1. The texts prove it not 1. Not Mat. 28.19 This indeed sheweth what the Ministery must do Not what the People The Ministery must teach all Nations But defineth nothing whether they may not be baptised before they have learned or before they do beleev much less doth it say None but beleevers may be baptized 2. Nor Mar. 16. This text sheweth what is the issue of Beleeving and bâ—ing Baptised viz. That such shall be saved and contrarily He that beleeveth not shall be damned But saith not That none may be baptised who beleeveth not Ob. But the Order of the Words doth inferr it Beleeving set before Baptising Sol. I reply That Doctrines collected from the order of words are not alway sound nor such Arguments conclusive Ex. gr Mat. 3.6 they were baptised confessing their sinns And Joh. 3.5 Born again of water and of the Spirit Here is Baptised before Confessing and Water before Spirit yet doubtless they did
act of the Parents corruption of Nature is propagated their act it is tho not voluntary in them So by the act of the Parents in this it is a voluntary act by Faith laying hold upon the Promise of God in that Sacrament is obtained for the Infant and bestowed upon him the Grace of Regeneration This to be the root and spring of future holines and righteousnes as the other was the root and spaun of wickednes and profaness Ob. It is said That every man must live by his own faith not by anothers Sol. By his faith indeed it is said that the just shall live Hab. 2.4 It is not said Not by anothers this is not in the text of the Prophet Nor doth the text speak simply of the Benefit it self gained by Faith but of the Pre-assurance ther-of No pre-assurance of Salvation but by Faith But this doth not prove That by his faith the Parent may not obtain for his child this benefit of Baptism the Remedy for that Malady We read in the Gospell That the woman of Canaan obtained mercy for her daughter The man for his lunatick sonn the Centurion for his servant the friends and neighbours for the Palsie-sick man Which instances have been alleged by Divines to manifest this point in hand viz. The Benefit of Baptism obtained for the child by the Faith of the Parents Bernard Seâ—m 66. in Cantica Ecbertus contra Cathacos Serm. 7. Remigius on Mat. 15.21 Calvin Harmon on MÃ t 9. That note of Remigius is worth the noting She saith not Help my daughter but help me and have mercy on me and so Mar. 9.21 The father of the Lunatick saith If thou canst do any thing have compassion on us and help us He puts himself in as a Co-partner of his childs misery Say the same here It is a mercy to the Father that he can prevail for his child who if he do rightly understand himself suffereth in his child yea not only by the way of compassion but as feeling the smart and punishment of himself And therfore hath need to sue unto God for the Removing of that punishmâ—nt which lyeth upon himself in his child Yea he hath this reason to châ—llenge it at the hand of God by the prayer of Faith that so he may obtain the fulnes of the Promise made to the faithful in the Covenant of Grace Infants are part of their Parents So that the promise of Grace mentioned in the Covenant betwixt God and the Faithfull Gen. 17. is not ratified to the whole Parent except also it do extend to his Infants So then it is the Faith of the Parent laying hold on the Promise which qualifieth his Infant for the Grace and good effect of Baptism Nay yet more This text on which the Argument was grounded Mat. 19. cometh yet neerer to the point For first the blessing of Christ which the Parents sought and found for their children was not terminated in an externall and corporall Benefit as per-adventure it might be replyed touching those former Instances Doubtless the Blessing of Christ extended to the good of their souls and yet procured by the Faith of the Parents without any concurrence of Faith in the Infants I will not per-emptorily affirm it But probable enough it is that these Parents having been by Johns Baptism directed to Christ when they knew him brought their children to Him to receiv a further blessing from him even that which John told them he could not give but they must expect it from another even from Christ Next it may be worth the noting That our Saviour saith Suffer little children to come unto mee To come not To be brought The act of the Parent is reputed the act of the child That none may deride the saying of the Ancient Credit in alio sicut peccavit in alio He beleeveth and cometh to Christ in and by his Parent as formerly he had sinned in the loins of another Corollary To conclude this first Argument Since by that text of our Blessed Saviour we have ground to believ That Infants presented to him are accepted Since what persons might be brought to him may be presented to his Ordinance There being no barr put in by any word of Christ to keep them of Nay more Since the Faith of the Parent doth lay hold upon the promise of Grace not only for himself but for his Infants yea ther is ground to believ the imputation of the Parents faith to the Infant I conclude ther is sufficient ground in Scripture to warrant Parents to present their Infants to this Ordinance and that with expectation to obtain the Grace and Benefit of the same The second Argument THis I ground upon the words of our Saviour Mat. 28.0 A charge given to the Apostles to instruct the Nations whom they should convert to the Faith to instruct them I say in the observation of all such Ordinances as Christ had commended to them This Observation enjoyned hath speciall reference to matters of Discipline for the right Ordering and Government of the Churches and Assemblies of Christians in which he instructed his Apostles no lesse than in matters of Faith and Doctrine as it is evident out of Act. 1.2 where is mention made of some Commandements which Christ gave to his Apostles touching things pertaining to the kingdom of God And it is no less evident by some passages in the New Testament ex gr Cor. 11.2 2 Thes 2.15 2 Tim. 2.2 that some things were delivered to the Churches and particularly to the Ministers ther-of which were not then committed to writing but delivered from Hand to Hand called therfore Traditions These were not matters of Doctrine especially not Articles of Faith None such do we acknowledge but what are delivered and set down in the writings of the Holy Apostles and Evangelists But matters of Discipline and Rules of good order in the Church These Ordinances sett up and practised by th'appointment of the Apostles are equivalent in Authority to what Christ himself hath immediatly ordained Hence that of St. Paul Cor. 14.37 Consequently a Ground on which Conscience may build and therby may assure it self that ther-in it doth not sinn against God Of the which we cannot doubt if reading that of Cor. 11.16 we note what is the Question and what is the Resolution The Question is Whether it were indifferent for men and women to be covered or not covered in the Church-assemblies as they listed St. Paul saith No it is not but the Men must do so and the Women so Now saith he If any man be contentious q d if he will presumptuously contend against all reason that the thing is indifferent and so he may in this use his own liberty What then why saith he We have no such Custome nor the Churches of God q d The Custome of the Church which is establisht must over-rule mens froward fancies and stand for a law to quiet the conscience of him that is willing to be satisfied So
Males in his house that very day in which the Lord made a Covenant with him and the practise of Israel who did the like by all the male-children and infants which they bought with their money Whence I say that Custome should come except from this president I see not That they did so is evident by the story of their Acts and being done by them we doubt not of the lawfulnes No Revelation had they for it that is recorded This Ground of Conformity to the Pattern of the Old Testament we find in others and therfore conclude this also Now them The issue of all returns to this text Why this Rule should hold in so many particulars and only fail in this point of Baptising Infants I leav for them to give a reason who know what difference ther is betwixt reason and absurdity Especially since it is plain enough by the Testimony of the Ancients who lived in the next Ages after the Apostles That this also was a Custome establisht by the Apostles In Pamâ—lius notes on Cyprian Epla 59. you may find the names of the Ancients who referr it to an Apostolicall Tradition So also doth Augustiâ— lib. 4. De Baptismo câ—ntra Donatist cap. 23. And in his Epl. 28. Ad Hyeronimum speaking of the 59 epistle of Cyprian the Title wher-of is Ad Fidum de Infantibus Baptisandis he saith Beatus Cyprianus non aliquod decâ—etum condens novum â—ed Ecclesiâ—e fidem firmissimam seâ—â—ans ad corrigendum cos qui putabant ante octavum dâ—â—m nitivitatis non esse parvulum baptisandum mox natum rite baptisari cum suis quibussdam coepissopis censuit The Breviat of all this discours is this Every Commandement of Christ is to be observed Mat. 28. Infants-Baptism is the Commandement of Christ Every Apostolicall Institution is the Commandement of Christ Infants Baptism is an Apostolicall Institution therfore The Major is proved Cor. 11.25 and 14.37 and must be acknowledged except we would suspect them of fals and faithless dealing The Minor is acknowledged by the Ancients And ther is great reason for it because it doth as do the rest of the Rules for Order and Discipline delivered to the Church carry in its face and fore-head the stamp of Christs Ordinances viz. Conformity to the Pattern of the Church of Israel So then To them who think they may triumph in that Argument produced against Infants Baptism That it being presupposed that the Testament of Christ is so perfect and he so faithfull that nothing ought to be practised of Christians which is not therein warranted either by Precept or Pattern And it being assumed that ther is neither Precept nor Pattern for this Custome Therfore it may not be practised To them I say we see what Answer may be returned 1. To the Major Flourished with that text of Heb. 3.2.6 as Moses So Christ was faithfull Nay more Moses only as a servant but Christ as a Sonn And therfore his Testament as perfect nay more perfect than that of Moses True indeed But know we not that the faithfulness of a man in his office is to be measured according to the intent and scope of his Office imposed In which if he fail and faulter then is he unfaithfull if not then is he not unfaithfull tho he look not to other things ex gr The Minister may be faithfull tho he meddle not with the Sword of Justice The Magistrate tho he fight not with the sword of the Spirit So then what was the office of Moses and what of Christ The Office of Moses was to settle the Common-wealth and the Nationall Church of Israel The Office of Christ was to make Reconciliation betwixt God and man to work out the Redemption of Mankind It was fitt that Moses should sett down particular laws for the Common-wealth and Ordinances for the Church Neither of these did pertain to the Office of Christ yet by his Apostles and their successors in severall Ages doth he provide whatsoever is necessary for the welfare and good order of the Church of the New Testament But in his own person and by himself he established the Covenant of Grace ordained the Seals ther-of sett up a Ministery gave to them the word of life and salvation and pointed to them a pattern for good Order and Government and so was faithfull in his house as a Sonn and worthy of more honour than Moses This for the Major 2. To the Minor We grant That neither Precept nor Pattern formall and explicite is to be found in the books of the New Testament for Infants baptising i. e. There is no Precept that saith Go and baptise Infants no more is ther any Precept to baptise Women nor to observ the Lords day as a Christian Sabbath Ther is no text that saith The Children and Infants of this or that man were baptised Nor is ther any text that saith Such a woman was admitted to the Table of the Lord. But we say that both Precept and Pattern virtuall and implicit may be found to warrant it The which if found is not to be neglected Precept Virtuall and implicit Here we pitch upon the continuation of the Custome in Israel to present their Infants to the Sacrament of initiation and we frame the Argument thus What was instituted in the Old Testament and not repealed in the New nor is any way incompatible with the state of the Church in the New Testament that is understood to be continued and commended to the practise of the Christian Church But that Infants should be initiated and admitted into the Covenant of Grace by a Sacrament was commanded in the Old Testament neither is it repealed in the New nor incompatible with the state of the New Testament therfore That it is not repealed is thence confirmed Because in the Substitution of that new Sacrament of Initiation ther is no particular exception taken against Infants as before was noted in the first Argument That it is not incompatible with the state of the Church in the New Testament is thus further confirmed 1. The Infants of Christians are as capable of present incorporation into Christ and of admission into the Covenant of Grace as were the infants of the Jews And if so who shall barr them whom God hath not barred from the Seal of the Covenant 2. The Infants of Christians have as much need of the Communion and Participation in the Covenant of Grace as had the Infants of the Jews And their Parents as much need of a Ground of comfort as touching the Remedy of that which maketh them stand in need of the Covenant of Grace and the Benefits therof as the Parents of Jewish Infants If so who shall think that God hath not provided for them so well as for the other If he hath not how hath Grace abounded in the New Testament when in this particular it is much restreined both to Beleevers and to their Infants But if he hath who shall forbid them
Teachers and Officers in the Church They must indeed put a difference betwixt things holy and profane they must separate the precious from the vile pronouncing mercy to the one denouncing judgement to the other admitting the one to the Holy things keeping of the other This must they do and if not they deserve a just reproof But what is this to the cause in hand Doth this countenance the course of such who condemn those that do not put themselves from the Holy things of Gods because those be admitted which ought not Is not this rather to make sad the Heart of the righteous That of Esay 65.11 Yee are they that forsake the Lord that prepare a Table for the Troup and furnish a drink-offering for the number This I say hath been alledged to tax the negligence of them who admit the promiscuous multitude to the Table of the Lord As if the Prophet had blamed Israel for the like carelesness in their Passover and Peace-offering wheras the text doth blame their Idolatry not their profaness Idolatry in sacrificing to Jupiter and Mercury to the Host of Heaven But admit it as a tax of negligence and profaness yet must it not fall upon every particular person Apply it to the Church officers and spare not but blame not them who because the promiscuous multitude are not turn'd away do not turn away themselves from the Table of the Lord. And so much for the first Argument c. The second Argument NO man may neglect either the Duty that he oweth to God or the Benefit which God reacheth forth to Him upon pretence that another man doth not perform his Duty or is not fitted to receive the Benefit with Him Shall not the Husband pray or Hear and Receiv because the wife of his Bosome is passionate and irreconciliable Shall not Lot make hast out of Sodome because his son-in-laws do not prepare to go with him That it is a Duty to receiv the Sacrament is plain enough by that precept Do this in Remembrance of mee That ther is a Benefit reached forth to us in it is as evident by that word of our Saviour This is my Body This is my Blood He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life Nay more This Benefit cannot be had without this duty Except yee eat the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his blood yee have no life in you Joh. 6.53 You will perhaps reply That Duties must be performed in a right manner otherwise we may provoke God Israel must eat the Passover yet not in their uncleanness nor with the unclean say the same of Christians I grant the Proposition for sound and good The instance of Israel doth not reach home to the point in hand It doth not appear by any text of Scripture That if the Master of the familie did neglect to exclude such as were unclean that therupon the children or servants did or might lawfully forbear the Passover Add this also To bring home the Argument more particularly to the cause in hand where a prepared Heart may comply with the principall end of Receiving the Sacrament ther ought he not to absent himself for want of the secondary Reason giveth it That wher ther is a Duty to be done a Benefit to be expected If ther be divers Ends of doing that duty some more some less principall No reason to neglect that by which the Principall end may be obtained because we cannot obtain thâ— sâ—condary Now then As God hath appointed and ordained this Sacrament 1. To hold forth the Benefit of Christs death to the worthy Receiver that by partaking of Christs flesh and blood the Christian may be more neerly united to Christ himself in the first place and then to the members of Christ 2. To call for and cause in the Society of the faithfull a publick Testification of their mutuall love and charity one to another as members of the same mysticall body So the principall end of Receiving is to continue the Union and Communion with Christ and all good Christians the living members of Christ which was begun in Baptism And the secondary is to make profession of it by joining with this and that Assembly of Christians Now then since the primary end of Receiving is our Union with Christ and our union with Christians is but the secondary For we are not united to Christ by being received into the Congregation but indeed received into the Congregation because first united to Christ Nay since the primary end is Union and our Profession or Testification therof is but the second or third end of Receiving Therfore where the Primary end may be obteined why should the want of the second or perhaps the third be accounted any just barr to keep us off Now howsoever the mixture of bad with the good or the scandalous courses of over-many in the Assembly might seem a just barr to our Profession of Communion and Fellowship with this or that Congregation yet since it cannot hinder us in obtaining our desire of Union with Christ and his mysticall Body why should this mixture be any barr to the Duty enjoined In very deed if that Profession of our selves to be of the Number of them who hold of Christ and his Church if this I say were the principall end of Receiving the Sacrament Then were there some shew of Reason to forbear joining with a mixt Assembly But now it is otherwise It were indeed to be wished that the whole Congregation were such as that we might affectionatly desire to continue in Communion and Fellowship with them But if it fall out otherwise through the fault of other men Can that be a sufficient reason to hinder us from the Sacrament The prime fruit and Benefit wher-of we may partake of even in the mixt Assembly Add this also That it is charitably supposed ther be some Saints in the Congregation and in our address to the Sacrament we do profess our desire of Union and Communion with them if others intrude themselves we came not thither to meet with them Now the Question is whether we may neglect the good and godly Christians and that Duty which we ow to God in respect of them because of the bad and wicked whom finding ther we have not power to remove The third Argument TThat Opinion which in the best Ages of the Church hath been condemned of errour And that which necessarily casteth Christians upon inextricable difficulty's and discomforts is in all probability erroneous and therfore not to be embraced Such is the opinion of them who hold it sinfull for a Christian tho well-prepared for the holy Sacrament by self-examination according to the Doctrine of the Apostle to draw neer to the Table of the Lord in the company of them that are unjustly permitted to come to that holy Ordinance That it hath been condemned as erroneous in the best ages of the Church is evident by the story of the Novatians first and the