incorporated Church must be avoided by all other such Churches 5. Yet do I believe that it is a worse Error to say that all that are cast out of one such Church may be received into communion by other Churches or single Christians 6. I do therefore distinguish of such Exclusion as we commonly call Excommunication or casting out of Churches or suspending from communion 1. As to the ground and cause of the Exclusion 2. As to the Terminus ad quem or the in quantum or intended effect of the Exclusion 1. It is one thing to be excluded on a cause that is supposed exclusive of Christianity it self and another thing to be excluded on a cause that supposeth him uncapable of the Priviledge of all incorporated Churches and a third thing to be excluded on a cause that makes men uncapable of Member-ship with that one Church only or some particulars and not all 2. So as to the effect It is one thing to be excluded from the number of Christians as such Another thing to be excluded from all Incorporated Churches as such And a third thing to be excluded from one particular Church only or some more on the like ground that are in the like case Besides all this I distinguish between an Exclusion upon the certain Nullitie of the Title and a suspension while the Title is under tryall upon a just occasion of questioning it From hence I hold as followeth 1. That there may be just reason to cast a man out of a particular Church who yet is not denied to joyn with other particular Churches For example if a member of this particular Church hold me to be no true Minister and that he may not communicate with me supposing him to mistake or if he hold it his duty to contradict the Doctrine and Practice of Infant-Baptism or the like he may make himself utterly uncapable of communion with this Church who yet may be capable of communion with other Churches The like oft falls out where Churches differ about lesser Doctrines or Ceremonies or Ordination of Pastors a man that will in a troubling zeal suppose himself bound to be a continual disquiet to that Church where the occasion is may be cast out from that and uncapable of joyning with any of that same opinion and way and not with others that are of his own way and Opinion 2. A man may be cast out of a particular incorporated Church as such and consequently be at present uncapable of being a member of any such particular Church on Earth and yet not be cast out of the Universal Visible Church or number of Christians much less of the Invisible As for example If a man hold and maintain that there are no true Ministers in Office in any particular Church on earth by reason of an interruption in the succession of Ordination that man is become uncapable of being a member of any such Church and yet while he holdeth the whole Doctrine of Christianity besides and openly professeth it and supposeth that private gifted-men may Teach and Baptize he may still be a viâ—ible Christian and therefore not fit to be cut off from the Universal Church of Christians So in any the like Case Quer. Whether this be not the Case of those that place all Church-power in the Major vote of the people so that the Church must be governed only by such Vote and the Pastor is but the mouth of the People to act according to their Vote Whether men of this judgement declaring and professing it be capable of being members of any true incorporated Church on Earth though they may be members of such Societies as their own of humane invention contrary to the Word and to the very Essence of a true Political Church 3. I also distinguish between the excluding of a man from communion as No true Christian and excluding him as a scandalous or infectious Christian. As it was one thing for the Jews to remove the dead and another to remove a Leper from the camp And I suppose that 1. Ordinarily we are not to exclude any from our communion for a scandalous sin openly repented of 2. Yet it is possible that it may be of so hainous a nature that for the Credit of Religion and the avoiding of all occasion of Reproach by those without it is not meet to admit such an Offender into our communion till after some convenient time and larger manifestation of our disowning their crime and of their extraordinary repentance of it But this is but temporary 3. It is possible also that a man may have such an itching zeal to propagate a false opinion though consistent with Christianity that we may be bound to exclude him our actual communion to avoid the infection of the Church As also that his crime may so induce others to imitation that though it be consistent with Christianity we must exclude him as an infectious Leper because a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump 4. I conceive that an open Apostate needs no decisive sentential Excommunication but only declarative We cut off no man from Christ but declare who they be that cut off themselves from that Christianity which they seemed to have 5. Yet I conceive that an actual Apostate that is not totally an Infidel but renounceth only some parts of the essentials of Christianity and is loath to confess himself no Christian and will intrude into the communion of Christians whether to avoid shame or disquiet of conscience or danger c. I say such a One is the fittest object for the sentence of highest excommunication even from the number of Christians supposing him notoriously to be such As if a man should call himself a Christian and thrust into their communion and yet maintain that Christ is but a Prophet such as Mahomet or as the Arrians that he is not God or that there is no Resurrection or Life to come or that there is no Holy Ghost or that Christ is not to be obeyed when the Flesh is against it and that every man may live the life that best pleaseth his flesh or that he himself will obey his flesh before Christ or not let go his sin for the hopes of Glory at the command of God Among these I reckon a Notorious ungodly man who will in words call himself a Christian but by a more certain discovery make known that indeed he is none Here the Church is not only to declare him none but to sentence him none For a meer Declaration supposeth not a Controversie but a Sentence or Decision doth and his vain pretence and unjust intrusion made it a Controversie as between him and the Church though to the Church the Case be notorious This man then is cast out as No-Christian when I conceive that such a man as David Solomon c. were they now with us while they lay in that sin should be removed from actual communion as Lepers or scandalous Christians or at most as such as
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
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
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
ungodly ones as being as Notoriously no Christians 2. But if all this were unproved yet still it is sufficient to our purpose in hand that the Church-Guides are at present bound to Excommunicate them And sure they cannot at one and the same time be bound to cast out him and take in his child upon his Right into the number of Christians It s Objected The Excommunicate are members under cure Ans. Those that are but pro tempore suspended from some particular acts or parts of communion are so and those that are only cast out of an Incorâ—orated Church and not the Universal or from among Christians as Christians But for the rest that are so cast out the case is otherwise Many different acts of the Church and cases of the persons are usually confounded under this one word Excommunication Object Austin complains of one that had Excommunicated one Classicanus and with him his whole Family which he dislikes because the son must not suffer for the fathers sin Answ. What is this to our business We plead not for Excommunicating any child for the Parents sin but for not Admitting them at first into communion when the Parents have lost their Right and the child is born after 2. What if by the Law of the Land a Traitors Estate be forfeit if his Heir therefore receive not that which he could not give him because he had lost it will you say that this is contrary to Gods Ordination that the Son shall not suffer for the Parents sin The Son may yet have some priviledge from a Father which he could not have were that Father an Infidel or excommunicate person and therefore all the world have not the same Priviledges as the Church So much of that Argument Arg. 16. Those whom we may justly Baptize supposing them of age and natural capacity we may justly admit to the Lords Supper while they are no worse than they were at Baptism But we may not admit a notorious ungodly person to the Lords Supper Therefore we may not justly Baptize such And consequently not their children upon their account The Major is plain No Church-member ought to be kept from Church-communion in the Lords Supper but upon some just Accusation of a crime which he is since guilty of more than he was at his Admittance But the Baptized are Church members Ergo c. It is by one objected that this is the Anabaptists Argument or one to this purpose to keep out Infants because they are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper Answ. That is for want of natural capacity to use the Ordinance and not for want of a Right if they had such capacity But for men at age I suppose it past doubt that you may admit them to the Supper on the same qualifications as to state worthiness on which you may admit them to Baptism Object The Baptized are Incipientes the Communicants Proficientes Therefore there must be more in all Communicants then is requisite in the Baptized Answ. There ought to be more because they ought to grow in grace But 1. it is not requisite that they be in any other state then the Baptized Nor 2. Is it absolutely necessary that they have any further degree of grace For 1. the Lords Supper is the means of increasing grace and doth not ever suppose it encreased 2. The Apostles admitted the new baptized into their communion to breaking of bread and prayer presently Act. 3. and 4. Indeed there is requisite in the Receiving and before thoughts suitable to that Ordinance according to its difference from other Ordinances and so there is in each Ordinance according to its nature And in that sense as to some acts it s as true that there is somewhat more required also in Baptism then in receiving the Lord Supper But that 's nothing to the case The Minor is granted me by almost all on supposition that we can have a Classis to exclude the offender And many grant that every Minister may suspend one from the Lords Supper in this case by forbearing his own act I wonder how so palpable a mistake did come to be so common with wise men as that a single Pastor at least when he is the sole Governor of that Church may not exclude on just occasions Doubtless they may without a Classis take in men into the Universal Church for a Classis was not called for every mans Baptism Therefore if one man may be the sole Ruler of a particular Church of which there 's little reason to doubt why may he not do the Office of a Ruler But there 's much to be said for this on a fitter occasion See Gilesp Aarons Rod. l. 3. c. 15. pag. 541. The last Consequence I take for granted on what is said before and the meer nothing that is said against it viz. that if the Parents be in such a state in which they may not be admitted to baptism were it then to do then may not the children be admitted on their right or Interest because they are to come in as Theirs Argu. 17. Those that are Notoriously the children of the Devil may not be baptized nor their Infants on their account But the Notoriously ungodly are Notoriously the children of the Devil Ergo. I prove the Major 1. Baptism is ordained to admit all the baptized to be visible children of God those that are Notoriously the children of the Devil cannot be admitted to be at that time the visible children of God Therefore they may not be Baptized For the proof of the Major see Gal 3.26 27 28 29. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus For as many of you as have been bâ—ptized into Christ have put on Christ And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to promist The Minor is plain For the Minor of the main Argument see 1 John 3.7 8 9 10. Let no man deceive you he that doth righteousness is Righteous He that committeth sin is of the Devil In this the children of God are manifest and the children of the Devil Whosoever doth not Righteousness is not of God This Text proves also the inconsistencie of these two Estates Argu. 18. He that will not be Christs servant may not be baptized nor others on his account But notorious ungodly ones while such will not be Christs servants Ergo. c. The Major is proved in that it is part of Christianity in the Essence of it He is to be believed in and accepted as Lord and King All his Subjects are his servants The Minor is proved from Rom. 6.16 Know ye not that to whom ye yield your selves servants to obey his servants ye are to whom ye obey whether of sin unto death or of obedience unto righteousness Argu. 19. He that will not hear Christ as the Prophet of the Church may not be baptized But notorious ungodly Ones will not hear Christ as the Prophet of the Church Therefore
necessity of our holiness and Obedience to him He that denieth the Holy Ghost the Truth of his Miracles by which he sealed Christs Doctrine or the necessity of his Sanctification this man is Notoriously ungodly if he Notoriously deny these for he professeth ungodliness it self So doth he that denieth Christ hath any Church on earth and that denieth to have communion with his Church 2. That man is notoriously ungodly that is notoriously utterly ignorant of God and his son Jesus Christ of the Goodness Wisdom or Power of God of the Incarnation Death and Resurection of Christ and his Redemption of us hereby of the necessity of Faith and Holiness and of the evil of sin and of the everlasting blessedness that is promised to the Saints I will now only say excluding not the rest that the Ignorance of any one of these is inconsistent with true Godliness But I must tell you anon that there is need of much wariness in judgeing of such Ignorance 3. All those are Notoriously ungodly that do Notoriously upon Deliberation and with Obstinacy profess that they will not take God for their God and Governour or that they will not take Christ for their Redeemer and Lord nor be Ruled by him nor Trust in him for pardon and salvation or that they will not believe his word nor will be sanctified by his Spirit 4. All those are Notoriously ungodly that deliberately and ordinarily when they are themselves do Notoriously profess that they set more by the Pleasures Profits or Honors of this world than by the promised Blessedness in the life to come and that they will not part with these for the hopes of that Blessedness 5. All those are such also who though in the general they will say that they will be Ruled by God saved by Christ Sanctified by the Holy Ghost and guided by Gods Laws yet when it come's to particulars do deliberately in their ordinary frame profess that they will not part with their known sins at the command of God but resolve to displease him rather than obey 6. Such also are all those that though in general they profess to prefer Heaven before Earth yet when it comes to practice and trial do Notoriously and deliberately in their Habituated frame profess that they will not let go particular known sins for the hopes of Heaven 7. Such also are all they who living in gross sin and being convinced of it will not promise a sincere endeavour to reform nor will remove from or put away the removeable occasions which draw them to sin nor will be perswaded to use those known means which God hath commanded for the curing of their sin as to hear the Word to change their Company to confess their sin and take shame to themselves and profess Repentance They that Notoriously thus refuse Reformation when by Ministers or discreet Christians they are urged to it or that refuse Gods means which they are convinced he requireth of them and this obstinately are notoriously ungodly though they do not profess it in words For though it be exceeding hard to determine how great many or long the sins of a true Believer may be yet we are certain that he cannot manifest such a Love to them or Habituated unwillingness to be cured of them For that will not stand with true Repentance 8. All those are Notoriously ungodly that profess or express notoriously a Hatred of those that would draw them from their sins not for their harsh or indiscreet management of a reproof nor upon a meer mistaken conceit that the Reprover oweth him ill will but on that very account because they would draw them from known sin For this is Notorious impenitency and shews a Love of sin and the Reign of it in the Will 9. All those are Notoriously ungodly who do by Scorns Threatnings Persecutions or otherwise Notoriously express a Deliberate Habituated Hatred prevailing in their hearts against God Christ the Spirit the Scripture or Godly men because they are godly that is because they do Believe love God and live a Holy life and obey God in those things which they are convinced that he commandeth For this shews that Ungodliness prevaileth in the heart 10. All those are Notoriously ungodly that being convinced that its a Duty to pray to hear the Word to mind the Life to come and prefer it before this and to live a holy Life do yet so far dislike all this or any of this that they profess themselves resolved never to practice it and that they will venture their souls come on 't what will rather than they will make so much ado or live such a life yea though they will not profess this yet if they will not on the contrary be perswaded to profess that they resolve to live such a life and will not be drawn actually to the practice of it in their endeavours thereby manifesting that it is not so much for want of Ability as from a predominant unwillingness to be Holy in Heart and Life I say if this be Notorious then is it Notorious that these people are ungodly and accordingly to be judged and used by the Church Though I understand that many think that it is too rigid to go so far as I have already done in maintaining the Negative of the former Question yet I think it necessary to go further and to determine that It is our Duty to refuse to baptize the Children of more thâ—n the Notoriously Vngodly If you would know who else it is that we must exclude or refuse remember that before I told you of Excommunication from 1. A particular Church for some reason proper thereto or to some more but not common to all 2. From all Incorporated Congregations as such 3. From the society of Christians as such and that this last is either for a time because of the scandalousness of the sin and the credit of the Gospel with those without though we may yet see signs of Repentance in the sinner 2. Or for the Infectiousness of the sin as a Leprosie As if a man take himself bound to perswade all men to some greater and dangerous Error which yet may stand with Grace and Salvation but makes it very difficult and much hindereth it and if no means can convince this man of his Error nor take him off this is a kind of a Heretick who must be excluded from all Christian Communion but is not certainly and notoriously graceless 3. There is also exclusion from the society of all Christians upon an evident Proof that the man is no true Christian that is that he is Notoriously an Unbeliever or Ungodly person This I have spoke to all this while 4. But then there is also an exclusion upon a violent Presumption or very strong Probability though short of a Certainty that such a man is graceless or ungodly Hereupon I lay down what I take to be the Truth in the Propositions following Proposition 1. I may not deny the right of
possibility of mens erring in such Cases as are committed to humane determination that will warrant us to condemn that way or to cast about for some more Infallible or easie course such contrivances will have but the Popish success and will lose us the credit of our honest just Authoritative decision while we will needs pretend to an Infallibility that the world may discern that indeed we never had it The common-course of quarrelling with all Government where there is a possibility or danger of any great abuse and evils thereby doth directly conclude in the simple rejection of all Government by man and almost any thing else that man must be the agent in for as long as such vile imperfect wretches are the Governors how can you think the actual administration will be perfect Get Angels to Govern immediately or stay till men be as Angels of God and then you shall have a cure for all these Inconveniences but till then expect not good without evil nor that so bad a creature as Man even the best of men should govern any Society or do any considerable work without leaving upon it the Impression of his sinfulness and many Imperfections 2. Having shewed what this Profession must be in the General and the Nature of the Act I must next shew what it must be Materially and in Specie as it is morally specified from the subject matter And in general the thing to be Professed is that the Professor is a Christian or that he is a true penitent Believer in Christ. Object It is not his own belief qua creditur which he is to make Profession of but the Christian belief quae creditur that is the Doctrine of the Gospel Answ. 1. This is a contradiction He that professeth the Gospel to be true doth eo nomine profess his own belief of the truth of it For will he profess it to be true when he takes it not to be true otherwise he either speaks but the words while he takes it himself to be false which he speaks or else he only meaneth or saith that other men think it to be true though he do not 2. We need not to ask any man for a profession to Evidence the Gospel to be true but only to evidence his own Belief of it The Gospel needs not their testimony much less a testimony which they beleeve not themselves which is as none 3. Infidels are meet to be admitted to Baptism if there be no Profession of their own faith required But I suppose I need not to use more words against this objection More partâ—cularly as Christianity in sensu famosiori is the saving entertainment of Christ in the soul and faith in sensu famosiori is that which is called Iustifying saving Faith and a Church member in sensu famosiori is such a true Christian so it is true Faith and Christianity whose Profession is thus necessary and if there be but a bare profession without the thing Professed these are called Christians or believers but Analogically or as our Divines commonly tell the Papists Equivocally The Faith thus to be professed must be considered in its Acts and in its Objects The first Act is the understandings assent to the truth of the Revelation upon the credit of the Revealer which Implyeth yea formally containeth a crediting of his Veracity and so an Affiance therein 2. A Consent or Willingness that Christ be ours on the Gospel terms or an Accepting Christ and life as offered which Scripture calleth the Receiving of Christ Jesus the Lord Joh. 1.10 11. Col. 26. which is stil implyed in the Affiance or Recumbency by which the Act of Faith is so oft entitled in Scripture and which must be added As the act of faith must needs be both of the Intellect and the Will so the Object must be answerably the Truth of the Gospel and the goodness of the benefits there revealed and offered The Church is more agreed about the particulars of the Latter then of the Former for as the Papists would make us believe that the Fundamentals and Essentials of the Christian Faith cannot be known as distinct from the rest but that all which the Pope saith is de fide is of necesâ—ity to salvation so among our selves we are not well agreed whether Fundamentals that is Essentials can be enumerated There is no doubt but we may easily enumerate them in General terms and so our whole Christian Faith is contained in our common Profession at Baptism I believe in God the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost If we yet descend to some particulars the case is clear that to believe in God the Father is to believe that he is the most Wise and Great and Good and our Maker and Ruler and our chiefest Good to believe in God the Son is to believe that he is God and man the Redeemer and Saviour ransoming us by his blood and overcoming death by his Death and Resurrection and procuring us pardon and everlasting life by his Merits to believe in God the Holy Ghost is to believe that he is the Sanctifier of the people of God that shall be saved Thus much is Evidently Essential to the Christian Faith and nothing but what is contained in this But then the great difficulty lyeth here whether a more particlar belief of some truths contained under these comprehensive terms be not Essential to Christianity To which I only say in general 1. That the belief of the Truth of the Promise or other verities being necessary in order to the determination of the Will to the Acceptance of the good revealed therein there is therefore so much of the doctrine of Necessity to be believed as is of Necessity to the determination of the Will to accept God for our God by Creation and Jesus Christ for our Saviour by Redemption and the Holy Ghost for our Sanctifier 2. All that is essentially contained in these Relative Titâ—es our God our Saviour and our Sanctifier must be particularly conceived of and believed 3. The foresaid Explicatory terms well understood seem to contain all such Essentials 4. He therefore that upon a true understanding of â—hem doth believe all these doth believe all that is Essential to the Christian Faith 5. Some persons can understand the Matter contained in these words without any more words having first the Grammatical and Scriptural Explication of them others have not yet had such Explications or at least understood them not and so must have more particular express expository terms that they may understand 6. It is Matter that is primarily Essential and Fundamental and that Propter se Words are to be called Essential or Fundamental but secundarily and propter aliud viz. so far as they are Means without which the Matter cannot be received but no further and therefore no particular words are properly fundamental or essential to our Religion seeing that he that never heard those words and yet believeth the matter by equiplloent terms or any
the will though its true that the wicked have many difficulties in the way 2. They profess now that they are not wicked but converted therefore you must not take it for granted that they are wicked because they were so unless you can prove it and if you prove them wicked when they profess the contrary then indeed you invalidate their profession but not by proving that they were formerly wicked Object 8. But though all this hold of Heathens or Infidels newly pretending to be converted and so coming for Baptism yet it will not hold of professing Parents that bring their children to Baptism or of such as come to the Lords Supper For such have been long in the Church already and therefore must follow the truth of their Profession by a holy conversation Answ. I grant this and withall that the Pastor should be as diligent as he can to know the conversations of his people But withall I still say 1. That as it was sufficient at his first admittance that he made a verbal Profession so the same Obligation lyeth on the Minister and people to believe his word still till he forfeit his Credit as it did at the first A Verbal profession is still as Obligatory to us for belief though more be required in him to second it 2. And therefore I say that if a Minister through the numero usness of his flock or want of ability or opportunity or other causes yea culpable in himself shall be ignorant of the lives of his people he is to credit their Profession and not on that account to deny them Gods Ordinances 3. They therefore that will exclude any for want of a holy life must bring a certain Proof of his unholiness of life for they can require no more Proof from him of his holiness but that he professeth it And so I grant that as he professed Repentance and Faith at first entrance so he is now to profess that he continueth therein and walketh holy before God And if he do but say that he doth this no man can reject him till he first disprove him supposing him to be a member of his pastoral charge or otherwise obliged to administer it to him if fit Those therefore that will have any mans children kept from baptism for their parents unholiness or persons kept from the Supper must not expect that men bring proof to them of their holiness beyond their profession of it but must deal by them as by other notorious offenders even admonish them of their unholy Carriages and if he hear not take witness and then call the Church and if he hear not the Church then he must he rejected and not denyed the Communion of the Church upon every mans uncharitable presumptions or so heavily punished before he be judged or heard 4. And they must know that it is hainous evils indeed that will prove a Professor certainly ungodly and therefore they must look well to the validity of their proof Obj. 9. But they have forfeited the Credit of their words by their Covenant-breaking and wicked lives Answ. It must be a breach of the Covenant as owned by themselves at age that must be sufficient to prove that 2. And that more then once For once failing doth not forfeit the Credit of a man's word 3. And these violations must be proved and not barely affirmed 4. Yea it must be proved that he doth at the present or hath of late lived in violation of former covenants Otherwise Repentance manifested by Reformation repaireth his Reputation Obj. 10. The text cited in the following Disputation proveth that the Apostles took all the members of the Church to be Saints Adopted Justified c. But we cannot think thus of all that now Profess themselves Christians without being unreasonable Answ. Sometimes the Apostles denominate the whole Church from the better part as we call that a corn-field which hath many tares And sometimes being not heart-searchers nor knowing the falshood of Particular men's Professions they speak of them according to their Profession which the Law of nature and of Christ commandeth us to believe though only with such a humane faith as may be mixt with much jealousie and fear of the contrary concerning many of them which the same Apostles also frequently manifested But yet as they must believe charitably so must they speak charitably of the Professors of true Christianity Besides those Objections many particular Texts are urged by some to prove that it is only the Regenerate and such as shall be saved that are to be added to the Church which I shall not now stand to answer particularly but only give this general answer to them all If they mean only such as are Really sanctified and sincere or elect then we must admit none because we know not one man to be such but if they mean only those that seem to be such I have proved already that their own Profession of what is in their hearts out of our sight is to be taken for such a seeming and doth qualifie them to be visible members of the Church For as the Matter of the Church as Invisible is true Beleivers and Saints so the Matter of the Church as visible is the Professors of that faith and holiness and their seed Besides what hath been said in general Arguments to prove the Proposition I had thought to have gone over many particular Arguments from several Texts of Scripture partly giving us examples of such as by Gods approbation have taken Professions as credible Evidences of the things Professed and partly in precepts requiring a charitable credulity towards our brethren but because I conceive the last so plan as to need no more I wâ—ll forbear this till I hear that it seemeth necessary But yet there 's one other Objection to be met with Those that feel this Proposition pull down the Principles of schism or unjust separation which they are engaged in or inclined to do Object that if a bare Profession may admit to baptism then it may admit to the Lords Supper and to the Priviledges of â—hurch-members and so Church-Ordinances and Priviledges shall be dispensed upon bare words and formalities and so made nothing of To which I answer Are you able to search and know the heart can you discern sincerity by an infallâ—ble judgment I know none but Mr. Trask that pretended to it And if you cannot and know you cannot then you must be found to take up with fallible signs your selves And those signs you may as well call meer formalities as you do this in question 2. And if we must needs take up with fallible signs is it not better to follow the Scripture examples proposed to our imitation then to frame a new way of our own especially when the Law of nature and nations doth consent with Scripture and the contrary opinion proceedeth from a dividing principle and tendeth to division 3. Make as diligent search as you can after the sincerity of your flock
as to their more profitable use of Ordinances but make no other conditions of their Right then God hath made 4. It is onely a Profession that 's serious voluntrary not contradicted prevalently by word or life which you must take as is before described And do you take it to be so unreasonable a matter to believe a man fide humana who speak's of his own heart which another cannot see when you can bring no evidence to disprove his words If you know any thing by his life that certainly proves his Profession false admonish him of it in the order that Christ hath directed you to till he either hear the Church or be rejected by the Church or at least by not hearing the Church do give you cause to take him as a Heathen or Publican but be not so much against the Scripture and 2. All discipline that ever the Church hath used And against common justice and reason as to do this by men on your own private judgement without evidence and a just tryal and once hearing them speak for themselves and many do that will unchurch a whole Parish and gather a new one on supposition of the invalidity of a bare Profession and on supposition that most are ignorant and ungodly before they have ever once accused them particularly or dealt with or excluded any of them in the way that Christ appointeth If I certainly knew that in this Parish there were 4000 unregenerate Persons and not 400 or 100 truly regenerate and yet knew not particularly which the unregenerate Persons were I ought not to cast out one man from the Church upon any such account Object But with what comfort can the Godly have communion with the societies that are so mixt with multitudes of the ungodly Answ. If they do not their duty in admoishing the offenders and labouring to heal the diseased members and to reform the Church in Christs appointed way Mat. 18.17 Then you may well ask With what comfort can such Professors live in the sinful neglect of their own duty But if they faithfully do their own part how should the sins of others â—e their burden unless by way of common compassion And how have Gods servant in all ages of the Church to this day received comfort in such mixt Communion These Objectors shew that they seek more of their comfort in men then is meet or that they discomfort themselves with their own fancies when they have no cause of discomfort given them from without but what must be born to the end of the world by al that wil walk in the waies of Christ. Object But it is the Communion of Saints that we believe and must endeavour Answ. True internal spiritual Communion with hearty Saints and External communion with professed Saints For real Saints in heart are unknown to us Ob. But the greater part do not so much as Profess to be Saints Answ. They that profess to believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and to renounce the world the Flesh and the Devil do profess to be Saints so do they that profess to repent of all sin and to be willing to live according to the word of God But I meet but with very few that will not profess all this Object They will say these words indeed but in the mean time they will scorn at godliness or disclaim it by their lives Answ. Those that do so must be dealt with in Christs way as Church-members till either they hear the Church or be rejected for their impenitency but you must not dare upon this account to unchurch whole Parishes nor ordinarily any one Person that hath not been dealt with in the order that Christ hath appointed To conclude this Disputation I find that the two things before mentioned are great occasions of the proneness of many godly people to schism The one is because they do not understand that Christ hath so contrived in it the Gospel that every man shall be either the Introducter of himself by Profession or the Excluder of himself by the rejection of Christianity And so that all Church admissions or rejections shall be but the consequents of his own choice that the chief comfort or the blame may be upon himself And this is partly from the admirable freedom and extensiveness of Gospel Grace which the sons of Grace should glorifie and rejoyce in and not murmur at and dishonour and partly from the wise dispensations of our Legislator that he may deal with men on clear grounds in their absolution or condemnation before all the world 2. The other cause of the schismatical inclination of some godly people is the great mistake of too many in confining all the fruits of Christs death and the mercies or graces of God to the Elect and so not considering the difference that there ever was and will be between the visible Church of Professors and the invisible Church of true Believers Alas Brethren in the name of Christ let me speak it to your hearts do you grudge a few common Priviledges to common Professors when you have the best and choysest part your selves you have Christ himself and do you grudg them the name of Christians or the bare symbole or signs of his body and blood You have sincerity of faith and Repentance and answerably you have true Remission and Reconciliation They have the profession of Faith and Repentance and do you grudg them the empty signs of a Remission which they have lost by their hypocrisie and Unbelief You have Inward communion with Christ in the Spirit as you have Inward faith Do you grudg an Externâ—l communion with the Church to them that have the External profession of Faith O Remember that the Net of the Gospel bringeth good and bad to the shore and the tares must grow with the wheat till harvest and then is the time that you shall have your desire The second Disputation Quest. 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 IT may seem strange that after 1625. years use of Christian Baptism the Ministers of the Gospel should be yet unresolved to whom it doth belong yet so it is And I observe that it is a Question that they are now very solicitous about And I cannot blame them it being not only about a matter of Divine appointment but a practical of such concernment to the Church I shall upon this present occasion give you my thoughts of it as briefly as I can which contain nothing that I know of which is new or singular but the Explication and Vindication of the commonly received truth We here suppose that Baptism is still a needfull Ordinance of Christ and that Infants are to be Baptized and that Ministers are the persons that should Baptize them so that it is none of our work at this time either to defend the Ordinance it self against the Seekers nor the
sequitur pontificem malum non esse câ—put ecclesiae alios episcopos si mâ—li sunt non esse capita suarum ecclesiarum Caput enim non est humor aut pilus sed membrum quidem praecipuum This put him on distinguishing and yet at last he could bring it but to this Dico episcopum malum presbyterum malum Doctorem malum esse meÌ„bra mortua perinde non vera corporis Christi quantuÌ„ attinet ad rationem meÌ„bri ut est pars quaedam vivi corporis tamen esse verissima membra in ratione instrumenti id est papâ—m episcopos esse vera capita c. ratio est quia membra viva constituuntur per charitateÌ„ qua impâ—i carent at instrumenta operativa constituuntur per potestatem sive ordinis sive jurisdictionis And what is this more then the wooden leg or silver teeth which our Divines compare them to But the new Papists since Bellarmine do see a necessity of a further distinguishing the Church as a visible political society from the Church as truly sanctified But that which we and all the ancients do make to be but the Profession distinct from the thing professed the body distinct from the soul the chaff distinct from the wheat the shell distinct from the kernel they make to be as the lower order which is the way to a higher as the Alphabet or lower Rudiments which are the way to Grammar as an apprentiship to a trade I mean as a state of preparation to a state of infallible salvation And because it favoureth their main design they seem to draw near to the same conceit which they were wont falsly to fasten on the Protestants viz. that there are two â—hurches one Political and visible the other regenerate Invisible And Bellarmine confesseth that some of them were of this mind in his time And all this stir is that they may advance their visible Church in the estimation of men thereby the more easily keep the rule in their own hands and exalt themselves above Scripture and draw as many as may be into their society and therefore they drive the poor ignorant Americans by hundreds to be baptized as we drive our beasts to watering or our sheep to be washed and in stead of staying till they make Profession of a saving faith with any seeming seriousness they make Baptism an entrance into the state of the Catechumeni which was wont to be the passage thence into the state of Christians that per fas aut nefas they may engage people to themselves under pretence of engaging them to Christ therefore it is that they so over extoll the visible Political state of the Church as Dr. Prideaux saith Lect. de visibil eccles pag. 128. Experti demum perciperunt externam ecclesiae pompam speciosos titulos apud instabiles plus lucrari quam non lectam vel saltem non intellectam scripturae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hinc ecclesiam ad ravint usque crepant Catholicam quam admissam statim restringunt ad Romae synagogam suco quidem veteratorio sed conspicuo satis ridiculo ut ex conficta ecclesia formeiur doctrina non ex veritate doctrinae reformetur firmetur ecclesia The chief adversaries therefore we have here to deal with are the Papists who over-magnifie the visible face of the Church make the faith of men unjustified to be true faith though not formatacharitate and make Hypocrites and and wicked Professors to be truly and properly fideles and members of the Church whom the Protestants affirm to be but secundum quid materially analogically yea equivocally called members or fideles and therefore they make Baptism to be an appointed means to admit men into this visible Political Church as into the ordinary way and passage to the state of saving grace or justification but not ordinarily into the present possession of it And therefore in conformity to all this they maintain that we must admit persons to Baptism upon the bare Profession of faith that is Assent with consent to be under the Government of the Church and the use of ordinances in order to be a better state For saith Bellarmine it is not Charity but Faith which makes a Christian which our divines admit as true in our sense of the word Faith which includeth the will and is proper to the truly regenerate but they deny it in his sense of it who maketh faith to be the only Assent of the intellect Against this adversary therefore I shall principally bend the force of my Arguments though to my great trouble I must be forced to deal also with a Reverend Brother of our own especially in answering his many fallacious arguments which he hath lately heaped up for that part which I must oppose 4. Before I can positively answer the question in hand I must premise these few necessary Distinctions 1. We must distinguish between a Profession of faith according to the Ministers sense of the words and a Profession according to the speakers sense 2. Between the Children of those that profess not saving faith as theirs and claiming Baptism on the account of some lower Profession and the same Children as owned by some other that do profess saving faith 3. Between the unlawfulness of Baptizing and the Nullity of the Baptism Those distinctions that are necessary for the answering of the objections will come in their places Upon these few I answer the question negatively explained in the following Propositions 1. It is not a Profession of saving Faith in the real intention of the Professor that we affiâ—m necessary but in the Apprehension of the Minister judging of the words according to their common use and acception For we know not the heart of the Professor and therefore know not certainly whether he intend those words as a Profession or not I do not mean whether he be sincere in his Profession and intend the thing Professed for that 's no part of the Profession it self but I mean whether he use the words which he speaks in the sense which they seem to us to import and which they are used in by those that best understand their common signification For example a Papist presenteth a Child to be Baptized Professing to believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost I know that these words according to the Scripture use of them signifie a true saving faâ—th but I am not sure whether the speaker do understand any more by them then a lower faith of meer Assent If I knew he meant no more I would require him to express a saving faith before I would Baptize his Child on his account but if I know it not nor have just reason to question it I must take the words as they are commonly used and seem to be intended by him and so if it appear to me to be a Profession of saving faith though I err and my errour be innocent it is my duty
of a good conscience is we shall further enquire anon Both the common expositions fully confirm the point which I maintain The Assemblies Annot. recite both thus Hence by the answer of a good conscience we may understand that unfeigned faith whereof they made confession at their Baptism and whereby their consciences were purified and whereby they received the remission of their sins c. Some understand by the Answer of a good Conscience that Covenant whereinto they entered at their Baptism the embracing whereof they testified by their unfeigned confession of their Faith viz. such a Faith as is aforesaid so that I conclude that this Texâ— doth plainly shew that Baptm is for the saving of the Baptized as to the instituted use and may not be used meerly to any lower ends then to put them into a present state of Salvation Aâ—gum 18. No one may be admitted to Baptism who may not be admitted a Member of the Church of Christ. No one may be admitted to be a Member of the Church of Christ without the profession of a saving faith by himself or Parents or Proparents therefore no one may be admitted to Baptism without the profession of a saving faith I speak of such admission to Church-membership as is in the power of the Ministers of Christ who have the Keyes of his Kingdom to open and let in as well as to cast out The Major is past question because Baptism is our solemn entrance into the Church who were before entred by private consent and Accepted by the Covenant of God All the question is of the Minor which I shall therefore prove 1. It is before proved that all the Members of the Church must be such as are visibly solemnly or by profession sanctified from former sin cleansed justified persons of God the Heirs of the Promise c. But this cannot be without the profession of a saving faith Ergo c. 2. This also is before proved where it was shewed that no others are Christians or Disciples 3. In Acts 2.41 42 c. The many thousands were added to the Church were such as received gladly the doctrine of saving Faith and Repentance and continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and Prayer and so far contemned the world as to fell all and make it common And doubtless no man continued in those wayes of doctrine fellowship prayer c. without the profession of saving Faith Repentance for the very use of these is such a profession Of which saith Calvin in Act. 2.42 Quaerimus ergò veram Christi ecclesiam Hìc nobis ad vivum depictum est ejus Imago Ac initium quidem facit à doctrinâ quae veluti ecclesiae anima est not as barely heard but as professed or Received Nec quamlibet doctrinam nominat sed Apostolorum hoc est quam per ipsorum manus filius Dei tradiderat Ergo ubicunque personat pura vox Evangelii ubi in ejus professione manent homines ubi in ordinario ejus auditu ad profectum se exercent illic indubiè est Ecclesia c. Quare non temere haec quatuor receâ—set Lucas quum describere vult nobis ritè constitutum ecclesiae statum Et nos ad hunc ordinem eniti convenit si cupimus verè censeri Ecclesia coram Deo Angelis non inane tantum ejus nomen apud homines jactare And ver 47. It is said that the Lord added daily to the Church such as should be saved Obj. It saith not that all shall be saved that are added to the Church Answ. But it describeth them that were added to the Church viz. that were such as should be saved or as Beza yielded to another reading and so Grotius and many others such as saved themselves from that untoward Generation quisese quotidie servandos recipiebant in Ecclesiam The Church is the Body of Christ Col. 1.18 24. and none are members of his Body but such as either are united to him and live by him or at least seem to do so The Church is subject to Christ and beloved of Christ and cherished by him we are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones Ephe. 5.24 25 30. And those that are against the General Redemption me thinks should be moved with the consideration that it is the Church that Christ gave himself for even the visible Church which he purchased with his own blood Act. 20.28 Ephe. 5.25 and he is the Saviour of his body ver 23. But so he is not effectively the Saviour of the Professors of a Faith that doth not justifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he is the effective Saviour of those that profess a Justifying faith and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the sincere but of others neither way Hitherto Divines have gathered from the plain texts of Scripture that there is but One Church One Faith and One Baptism and that those that had this Faith really were to be baptized and were real members of the Church and that those that professed this faith and so seemed to have it when they have it not are visible members of the Church and are so taken because their Profession is sensible to us and by that they seem to have the thing professed But the Opponents are fallen into a new conceit in all these 1. They feign a New Christian faith to themselves viz. A faith that is short of Justifying which Scripture and the Church of God have taken to be but a preparatory to the Christian faith subjectively or but a common part of it objectively considered so that before there was but one Christian faith and now they have made two 2. And so before there was but one sort of real serious or sincere Christians consisting of such as had that real Christian faith and now they have found out another sort of them that hold another sort of faith 3. So have they feigned a new Baptism for the Old Baptism was for Remission of sin and Burial and Resurrection wiâ—h Jesus Christ and to engraff men into the Church wich is the body of Christ upon the profession of a saving faith but the new feigned ends of Baptism are far different 4. And they have feigned also a new kind of Church For the Church of Christs constitution is but one which is called visible from mens Profession and invisible from the faith professed But they have made a Church which consisteth of a third sort of members that is of men that neither have saving faith nor profess it but only have or profess to have a faith of a lower orb 5. To this end they have confounded the Church and the Porch the Vineyard and the adjacent part of the Wilderness those that heretofore were but Catechumeni or men in preparation for the Church are now brought into it and are annumerated to true Christians before they once profess themselves such and that upon a lower profession 6 And hereby also the
two sorts of Teaching are confounded which Christ distinguisheth Mat. 28.19 20. That teaching which draweth men to Christ and maketh them Disciples and that which instructeth them when they are his Disciples that which perswadeth them to receive Christ Jesus the Lord and that which perswadeth them accordingly to walk in him For they take him for a Disciple that is but learning to be a Disciple meerly because he submitteth to learn and hath learned before some preparatory truths though yet he be not made a Disciple indeed nor profess so to be Mr. Blake is deeply offended with me for saying that Hypocrites that seem not only to be found Believers and profess a Justifying faith when they have it not are only equivocally or analogically Christians or members of the Church c. But I shall say somewhat more concerning those Believers that are described by him who do not so much as profess a saving faith viz. that they are no members of the Church at all if notorious and are not so much as to be named Christians nor to be admitted into the visible Church No man can prove that ever one man was admitted a Church-member in all the New Testament upon the Profession of any lower kind of faith than that which is the condition of Justification Otherwise we should have two distinct Churches specifically different or two sorts of Christianity and Christians differing totâ specie because the faith which is here made their qualification doth specifically differ by a moral specification When the Jaylor Act. 16 30 31 32 33 34. was admitted into the Church by Baptism with his houshold it was upon the Professing of such a believing by which both he and his houshold might be saved as is before shewed And so of all others in those times Argum. 19. If we once admit men to baptism or the Lords Supper upon the Profession of any other than Justifying faith we shall be utterly confounded and not be able to give any satisfactory Description of that Faith and so never be able to Practise our Doctrine as being utterly uncertain whom to baptize That I may the better manifest this I shall examine all the considerable Descriptions of that faith which I can meet with The Papists themselves are not agreed in this business sometime they speak as if a bare Assent would serve the turn but commonly they add that there is a Necessity also of consent 1. To be subject to the Church 2. To live under the Ordinances And if they take the Intention of the party or Parents or their Godfathers and Godmothers to be necessary as they do the Intention of the Priest then a bare Profession with them will not serve nor can they tell when any one is baptized Mr. Blake doth speak so much and purposely of this Point that one would think we may expect an exact Description of this faith from him if from any man especially in his last Book when I had so earnestly Intreated him before to do it because of the omission of it in his former Book And yet even in this hath he done nothing but involve and obscure his meaning more than before though I had purposely urged him to a plain discovery of his sense even somewhat beyond the bounds of modesty as it is esteemed of in common cases For I perceived that the stress of our differences did rest much in this because no wise man will leave his grounds till he see where he may have better unless he mean to be for nothing or of no Religion there 's no reason a man should upon every opposed difficulty relinquish that he hath And here that I may do Mr. Blake no wrong I shall cite his mind in his own words and gather as many of his disclosures of it as I can find For what he hath said in his Book of the Covenants I have spoken to it already in my Apologie And I write nor for those lazy Readers that had rather err than be at the pains of reading what is already written I shall therefore suppose that and gather what he saith in his Treatise of the Sacraments Pag. 109. he saith I confess as much of Repentance in them as was required in any to the acceptation of Baptism namely A Renunciation of their false way and a professed Acceptation of the tender of the Gospel And after to renounce his way of Paganism Judaism and to profess and engage to a Christian faith conversation Here I understand not Mr. Blake's english if he do not plainly renounce his cause and say the same that I do and so make vain his industrious opposition The tender of the Gospel is the tender of Christ and pardon and life to all true Acceptors of it If the professed Accepâ—aâ—ion of this tender be not professed saving faith beyond all common faith I must despair of knowing what faith is and consequently being sure that I have it and that I may be saved by it And if professing a true Christian faith and conversation and engaging thereto be not a professing of that which is proper to the sanctified I mean in the special sense then Mr. Blake hath made a new Christian Faith and Conversation which Scripture never prescribed nor described Pag. 172. He gives another but the most express answer which is likest to be his mind For a direct answer I say it it not profession to say we have this faith but a profession of our assent to the necessity of it with engagement to it that gives this little so P. 173. I say do profess of those that have those secret reservations wrapt up in their breasts not yet from under the power of lusts yet convinced of their duty and acknowledging the Necessity that it is the mind of God that they should be Baptized and have admission to Ordinances in order to bring them more sincerely and unreservedly to God And this being the will of God as you seem to yield when you say we are bound to Baptize them I say they have right in the sight of God to Baptism I shall begin my Reply with his last passage and I must needs say that Mr. Blake doth unworthily abuse me and my words in saying that I seem to yield that we are bound to baptize them Them What them My own words which he citeth to prove this by me are these Vocation which is effectual only to bring men to an outward Profession of saving faith is larger then Election that makes men such whom we are bound to baptize Forsooth in these words I contradict my self I seem to give Mr. Blake the cause I cannot but say that it is pity the Church should be troubled with such an undigested undistinguishing management of controversies for men to write so learnedly and industriously before they observe what they say Is the outward Profession of a saving faith which I say makes men such as we are bound to baptize the same thing with the
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
Congregations which the Countrey knoweth to be such as you have done pag. 142 143. upon the credit of your false reporters If I have deserved such dealing from you the Christian Assemblies of Worcestershire have not Restrain your indignation to me and abuse not your Brethren that meddle not with you And what is it that is denyed unanimously by other Congregations Surely not the necessity of professing a faith that 's more than Dogmatical at least I know no such Congregations and I hope I shall never know such For all your frequent and confident intimations that yours is the common opinion of Divines and mine is singular If paper could blush abundance of such passages would confute themselves and prevent the delusion of your credulous reader who will believe you to save the labor of a tryal Pag. 185. The words of mine that are cited as against my self are these Vocation which is effectual only to bring men to an outward profession of faith is larger then Election and makes men such whom we are bound to baptize true How unhappy am I that must contradict my opinion in the very words which contain it But still will you perswade men that an outward professing of true saving faith is all one with another kind of faith no man I think knows what which you are busily promoting to be the Title to Sacraments I shall not stand to search Mr. Blake's book for more of my self-contradictions or trouble the Reader with a further vindication For in thus much he may see the face of the rest and discern the judiciousness and equity of the Charge But as Mr. Blake dealeth by me so doth he by the Authors whom he alledgeth for his opinions as pag. 152.153 154 155. and elswhere He sticks not to cite them as owning his cause who in the very words recited by him do condemn it For in those words they make the Church as visible to consist of professors as distinct from true believers and know no members but true Christians and Hypocrites who therefore pretend to that Faith which they have not or else how are they Hypocrites And what 's this to Mr. Blake's new visible members that profess only some other kind of faith or how will this warrant his new kind of Baptism which must be administred upon the Profession of another sort of Faith The Lord illuminate us and pardon all the wrong we have done to his Church and Truth through our darkness and self-conceitedness The third Disputation Quest. Whether the Infants of Notoriously-ungodly baptized Parents have Right to be Baptized Tertullian Apologet. cap. 16. Sed dices Etiam de nostris excedere quosdam à Regulâ Disciplinae Desunt tum Christiani haberi penès nos Philosophi verò illi cum talibus factis in nomine honore sapientiae perseverant Thes. Salmuriens Vol. 3. Pag. 59. Thes. 39. Sacramenta non conferuntur nisi iis qui vel fidem habent vel saltem eam prae se ferunt adeò ut nullis certis argumentis compertum esse possit eam esse ementitam Aaron's Rod Blossoming pag. 514. I believe No conscientious Minister would adventure to baptize one who hath manifest and infallible signs of Unregeneration Sure we cannot be answerable to God if we should minister Baptism to a man whose works and words do manifestly declare him to be an unregenerated unconverted person And if we may not Initiate such a one how shall we bring him to the Lords Table Rutherford Due Right of Presbyteries pag. 231. n. 2. But saith Robinson most of England are ignorant of the first Rudiments and Foundation of Religion and therefore cannot be a Church Answ. Such are materially not the visible Church and have not a Profession and are to be taught and if they wilfully remain in that darkness are to be cast out The third Disputation Quest. Whether the Infants of Notoriously ungodly Baptized Parents have Right to be Baptized THE Question is of the greater moment because about Matter of Practice and that in a Point wherein the Honor of God on one side and the Rights of mens Souls on the other are so much concerned It supposeth first that Baptism is Gods Ordinance of continued Use and that some are to be Baptized Secondly that it is a Benefit or else we could not in the sense now used be said to have Right to it Thirdly It supposeth that some Infants have Right to be Baptized This Question therefore is not to be disputed with the Anabaptists who deny the presupposed And they that are so indifferent in the former as to take it for an inconsiderable matter Whether Infants be baptized or not must needs judge this Question of the Infants of the Ungodly to be much more inconsiderable Fourthly Yet doth it not suppose that the Infants of any ungodly persons have this Right as if it were only the Right of Notorious ones that were disputable but the word Notorious is added to limit our present Dispute to that sort for several Reasons at this time passing by the other but not taking it for granted Fifthly Nor doth the Addition of the term Baptized to Parents take it for granted that no children of unbaptized Parents have such Right But it limits the Question to that sort only as fitter in several respects for our Dispute For the explication of the terms 1. By Infant we mean Children not yet come to the use of Reason so that as they are not sui Juris but at anothers dispose so they are uncapable naturally in any Contract to dispose of themselves being unfit to give consent through a natural defect of that understanding which is pre-requisite By a natural Defect I mean of nature in it self considered and not as corrupted by sin nor as neglected sinfully by our selves or others So that I see not but that Ideots are in the same condition as Infant children But of that let every one think as they see cause In Law homo primae aetatis is an Infant even after he can speak though as to the Etymologie he be called an Infant quia fari nescit i. e. loqui non potest ut Isidor lib. 11.2 2. By Parents we mean principally Natural Parents those who begat those Infants but secondarily also as I suppose those that have Adopted them or bought them or received them as given or delivered to them so that they any way become Their Own and they have the dispose of them and are enabled to enter them into Covenant so as to oblige them on the highest terms Though I know it is not properly that these are called Parents The word Parent is primarily applicable to the Mother only as not being à Parendo but à Pariendo and thence to the Father also because of the Relation between Gigno Pario and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometime used for Genero And though the word Parens be not usually applied to those that Adopt yet Pater is And not unfitly
have given us reason to question their Godliness 6. There is also a threefold suspension The first is from some special act or part of communion only as the Sacrament of the Lords Supper during the time of a mans just tryal A duty not being at all times a duty it is meet that he forbear while he is under such tryal who hath given just occasion of suspicion and accusation I mean here only the tryal whether they are guilty of the fault that they are accused of or not This suspension is not penal but the orderly doing of duties Another suspension is when the Crime is confest or proved and the only thing in doubt is Whether the person be penitent or impenitent supposing the Crime an heinous Scandal the person may be excluded all special communion with this limitation Till they manifest Repentance And this is the most common censure I think that the Church hath use for The third sort of suspension is that before-mentioned when though we are satisfied of the persons Repentance yet the heinousness of the Crime or the scandalousness and occasion of Reproach to the Enemy or the Infectiousness may necessitate us to delay his Re-admission In these two later there is somewhat of Excommunication mixt with the suspension In the former not so In these two later we judge the person to have no Right at that time to enjoy communion because no aptitude to possess it but not that he hath lost all Right to future communion But yet his Right will not be plenary for the future unless he repent and get an aptitude for communion Buâ— if we cast out a man as no true Christian then we deny him to have any Right for the future that is his chief Title is Null and he must have a new Title as the foundation of his Right before he can have any Right whereas the scandalous Christian hath his fundamental Title still but only hath a barr put in his way from present Possession I have been the larger on this that you may fully know the meaning of the Argument and on what ground all Objections are to be Answered And now you see that I speak not of every sort of Excommunication here but only that which justly excludeth from all Christian communion as Christian and not that which excludeth only from any or all particular Churches Though of this last I suspend my determination And I speak not of meer suspension at least of the first or third sort Indeed my opinion is this 1. That all so excommunicated can give their children no right to Baptism nor be fit mediums of the conveyance of it 2. That all justly suspended from communion of Christians till they manifest Repentance having given the Church great cause strongly to suspect them of utterly graceless Impenitency should have their children who are born while they are in that condition suspended from Baptism unless they have a better Right than from them Lastly note that I mention not only actual Excommunication by sentence but Excommunication ipso jure For if it be Excommunication all 's one and the later the most unquestionable I now prove the Major thus If such Infants cannot receive union and communion with the Universal Church on the account of their Parents Interest then neither can they receive Baptism on that account But the Antecedent is certain which I prove thus Such Parents cannot be the means of conveying that to their Children which they have not themselves But they have no such Union and Communion themselves Ergo. I know in some cases as in working Grace on others a man may be a means of effecting that in another which he hath not himself But that it is not so here I think will be granted for the Parents Right is all the condition in Question now of the childs Right and it is only this kind of Conveyance that we mean The Consequence needs no proof To be baptized is to be put into union and communion with the visible Church This is one inseparable use of it therefore he that cannot be a fit medium to convey one cannot for the other For the Father and Mother to be put out or judged out and yet the child taken into the same body as a branch of them and on their account is plainly to Do and Undo and contradict our selves To this it is said by some That an Excommunicate man loseth but his Jus inre and not adrem and retaineth still his fundamental Right and therefore as to this is still a Church-member he is but suspended from present benefit and not cut off from all Title To which I answer 1. If this be true of all Excommunicate persons then is it impossible so much as by a Declarative Excommunication to cut off any from the Universal Church If a man maintain that Christ is neither God nor Redeemer but a Prophet second to Moses or Mahomet and yet will call himself a Christian and usurp communion if we cast him out he hath still a Fundamental Right Can any man have a fundamentall Righâ— that denyeth any Fundamental Truth But if any will say That this is not Excommunication but Declaring or Judging a man to be an Apostate I reply Rather than we will differ about the Name call it what you please as long as you know what we mean He that notoriously sheweth that he hath not Christ hath no fundamental Right Whether Matth. 18. and 2 Thes. 3.14 1 Cor. 5. speak of this or that sort of Excommunication is little to our Question It is further objected Either the excommunicate persons sin divests the child or the Churches Censure But neither Ergo c. Not the former for no sin but that of Nature descends to Posterity Man transmits not his personal Vices Fault or Guilt no more than his Graces Answ. As if the Question had been about divesting a child of a Right which he had before and not rather of the conveying of a Right which he had not We suppose the child born after the Parents are excommunicate And had that child a Right beâ—ore he had a Beâ—ng and so before it could be any subject of Right you talk of uncloathing him that was born naked and never cloathed We rather suppose that the new-born child must then receive a Right from the excommunicate Parent or have none and therefore conclude it hath none unless on some other Interest then theirs It is further objected as to the Censure I never read that Church-Censures were like that plague laid on Gehazi to cleave to him and his seed See Deut. 24 16. Answ. Church censures deprive not the child of any Right that it had for we suppose it unborn but they shew the Father to be in an incapacity of conveying it that Right which it never had I say therefore to your Argument The sin of the Parent preventeth the childs Right and the Church censure declareth and judgeth it so prevented And on your grounds and
yet have their Disciples a form of Godliness And doubtless Reprobates concerning the faith if so known are not to be numbred with Christians Those from whom we are to be separated here and hereafter are stiled oft The Vngodly Psal. 1. And as in some places the distinction is between Believers and Vnbelievers so in others between the righteous and wicked or ungodly 1 Pet. 4.17 18. where all these are descriptions of the same men ungodly and sinners such as are not of the house of God men that know not God And it was the world of the Vngodly that God brought the Flood upon and to be an example to those that after should live ungodly was Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed 1 Pet. 2.5 6. And John tell us that in this the children of God are known from the children of the Devil he that doth wickedness is not of God Note well the description of these Jude 4. On one side they pretended to be Christians for they are said to be crept in among them to turn the Grace of God into lasciviousness they were spots in their Feasts clouds without water carried about of winds without fruit twice dead vers 12. It is apparent then that they were Baptized ones Yet the Apostle excludeth them from the very number of Christians calling them twice dead plucked up by the roots men that denyed the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ ver 4.12 And the Desciption of them is that they are ungodly Hereticks that taught and practised ungodliness as you may see ver 8 9 10 11 12 13 17 18. walking after their own ungodly lusts sensual having not the spirit of whom Enoch prophesied saying Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his Saints to execute Judgement on all and to convince all that are ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed And the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who imprison the truth in unrighteousness Rom. 1.18 If Rom. 1 2. speak of Baptized persons turned Hereticks as some Expositors judge then they are put in as vile a character and as distant from Christians as Heathens are It is the world as distinct from the Church that lie in wickedness 1 Jo. 5.19 Psal. 50.16 To the wicked saith God What hast thou to do to declare my statutes or that thou shouldest take my Covenant in thy mouth seeing thou hatest Instruction and castest my word behind thee The Sacrifice of the wicked is an Abomination to the Lord Prov. 21.27 so then must his false promising in Baptism So Prov. 15.8 9.26 whatever they may say with their mouths for God and Christ and the Faith yet The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart that there is no fear of God bâ—fore his eâ—s Ps. 36.1 And David could see by the life of the fool that he saith in his heart There is no God even when they do evil and not good and hate the people of God and call not upon God Psa. 14. See Mal. 3.18 Church censures are as Tertul. speaks praejudiciuÌ„ futuri judicii and therefore must go on the grounds of Gods judgment which is to sever the wicked from the just Mat. 13.49 and that according to works not meer words as was said before Eccl. 3.17 Prov. 15.29 We are not to gather those into the Church whom we know to be far from God and he putteth away but such are wicked Psal. 119.119 Thou puttest away all the wicked of the earth like dross 155. ver Salvation is far from the wicked They are estranged from the womb Psal 58.3 Acts 3.23 every soul that wil not hear that prophet shal be destroyed froÌ„ among the people All these passages with multitudes more shew that the name of a Christian unworthily usurped maketh not a notorious ungodly man to be in any capacity of a better esteem with God or the Church or any good men therein than are openly professed Infidels especially that want the means which they enjoy For all this pretence of theirs can give us no probability of any more then a superficial Assent less then that of the Devils and this is but knowing their Masters will which prepareth these Rebels to be beaten with many stripes And should that which makes them the greater sinners give them right of admittance into the Church It is Agustines Argument lib de fide oper 3. The case is yet more clear that such are excommunicated ipso jure when we consider that it is far more usual for Gods Law to serve without a sentence then mans most of the matters of our lives are there determined to our hand and we must obey the Law whether there be any judgement of man to intervene or not God hath not left so much to the judicial Decision of man as humane Laws do It is a great doubt whether there be any power properly Decisive-judicial in the Church-Guides or not but doubtless it is more limitedly and imperfectly Decisive than is the power of Judges in the matters of the Commonwealth So that if all the Rulers in the Church should forbear to Censure Notorious Apostates Hereticks Ungodly ones yea if they all command us to hold communion with them because they call themselves Christians we are nevertheless bound to disobey them and to avoid such as to Religious communion For else we should obey man against God who hath directed many of these precepts to all Christians and not only to the Governours of the Church If the Guides will suffer the woman Jezabel to teach and seduce and the Nicolaitans to abide among them whom for their filthiness God did hate it is the peoples duty for all that to avoid them if they will be Guiltless Yea Cyprian tels the people that it belongs to them to forsake and to reject an unworthy Minister that is by others set over them or doth intrude I conclude therefore that as all Christians must beyond dispute use an open Infidel as such though it belong not to the Church to judge them that are without because the Law here serves turn without a judgement the case being past controversie so also a Notorious ungodly man though pretending to Christianity and entertained by the Church is to be avoided by every good Christian as being ipso jure excommunicated by God Most of the Objections that I have heard against this are from men that not understanding this phrase of Excommunication ipso jure through their unacquaintedness with Law-terms have supposed that we meant no more but de jure or that they merited Excommuication or it was their due But ipso jure means ex vi solius Legis sine sententia Judicis Its common for Legislators in several Cases either where Judges or other Officers are needless or cannot be had or may not be staid for to enable the subject to do execution without any more judgement And so we are bound to avoid such Notorious
so First they must avoid â—hristian communion with him in ordinary wayes wherein they are free as all private or voluntary open familiarity Secondly But if he intrude by the Pastors approbation into Publike communion in Prayer Prayses or Sacrament they ought not to withdraw from the communion of the â—hurch because of his presence First because they have the Liberty of esteeming him as they please Secondly because it is not their fault but the Pastors Thirdly and therefore it is but a Physical and not a Moral communion that they have with him Fourthly because they are bound to hold communion with the Church in the use of Ordinances And as for the Infant on that account baptized iâ— is so few acts of communion that an Infant is capable of that the question seems to be of no great moment how far we should have communion with them But I conceive we should take them as baptized persons externally and so far members of the Church though wrongfully admitted 7. To which purpose it is not altogether inconsiderable that the Minister being by Office the Baptizer and so the Judge of his own Actions whom he ought to Baptize and whom not the action is not Null though he mistake in his Judgement and apply the Ordinance to one that he should have refused For he doth but an act belonging to his Office though he do it amiss or on a wrong subject As if a Judge do pass sentence mistakingly yet may it be valid as to some execution For though he have no power given him directly to pass a wrong Judgement yet in order to passing a right Judgement he hath power to follow his own discretion and to pass such a Judgement as shall at least in tantum stand though it prove wrong I confess the Ministerial Power somewhat differeth from a strict Decisive Judicial power but yet there is so much resemblance as may serve to illustrate the matter in hand Object Then if a Minister Baptize a Heathen it is not Null because he is Judge whom to baptize Answ. 1. On the grounds we now go on it it a contradiction to baptize a Heathen that by a present profession is such For Baptizing essentially containeth the persons external Covenant or Profession of Believing in and Dedication to the Father Son and Holy Ghost If there be not by the person and Minister such a Dedication it is not Baptism for if the bare external Washing were Baptism then we were every day baptized Now he that is Baptized into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost doth thereby renounce Heathenism so far Though whether his Profession shall be credited dependeth on the probability of its verity or falsity But on the first mentioned Definition of Baptism it will be granted you that Baptizing a Heathen is not a Nullity as to the outward Baptism though it be unprofitable and sinful But to go on former grounds I further answer 2. It is one thing for a Judge to mis-judge a Cause that belongeth to his Judgement and another to mis-judge a cause that is wholly exempted from his Judgement and belongeth not to him In the former his Judgement may stand in divers cases because he was made Judge In the later it is wholly Null for he is but a Private man and hath nothing to do in the business and therefore whether he judge right or wrong it is Null As if a Judge go to another Bench or into another Circuit which is out of his Commission So here where a man layeth claim to Baptism and professeth himself a Christian the Minister is to judge whether he do it truly or falsly and therefore though he mistake the Baptism is not Null For though the man be notoriously ungodly yet it is supposed that the Notoriousness is not absolutely unquestionable and that the person doth not profess it when he comes to Baptism but deny it by professing Faith and Repentance and so though the Church have sufficient ground to discredit that profession by reason of hâ—s contradicting Life yet a Controversie it is while the person claims a Right in Baptism for his child and being a Controversie the Pastor is judge But if he baptize a Heathen that makes No Profession of Christianity true or false then he medleth in a matter exempted from his Power and out of his Commission and contrary to it and that which can be no Controversie fit for his determination and therefore it is Null and indeed no Baptism Object If the Pastor be thus Judge how can you say as before That the Notoriously Ungodly are ipso Jure Excommunicated Answ. 1. Ministers are limited in their judgement by the Law of God which telleth how far they may or may not Judge and how far it shall or shall not be effectual The people are not absolutely tied to follow their judgement when they err 2. God hath directed his Precepts for the avoiding of notorious ungodly ones to every Christian directly and not only to the Pastors directly and to the people only from them so that if a Pastor command us to have communion and familiarity with such we are yet to avoid them as far as was before expressed for all that because Gods command is contrary to the Pastors And the Law openly declareth that such are not true Christians or Believers and therefore a Pastors sentence cannot make them such His erring judgement may do more to bring a man into the Church than to keep him in and in keeping him in as to possession it may do more to the conveyance of those Priviledges which are to come meerly from his own hands and administration than those wherein the people are to be instruments Because he is more the Determiner of his own Actions such as are baptizing administring the Lords Supper c. than of theirs For his own Erring Judgement may ligare etsi non obligare entangle him in a kind of necessity of sinning till that Judgement be changed but it cannot tye them nor so necessitate them to sin though it may bring them under some inconveniences and for Order and the Peace of the Church they must quietly peaceably and submissively dissent By the Law of the Land the Kings Judges in his Courts and Assizes were the lawfull Judges of a Traitor that was brought before them and yet in some notorious Cases I suppose he is condemned ipso Jure and any man that can come at him might lawfully stab him without Judgement yea is bound to do it as if they had stood by and seen the Kings Person assaulted as the Lord Major of London did by Wat Tyler Or if it were not in defence but in avenging of the Treason if hainous and in several Cases they might kill them in a forcible apprehension if they resist as they did by the Powder-Traitors here neer us at Holbetch House But what need I mention these things when it is so commonly known that in several Cases the Law enableth us for
enquiry Which is the Church that hath this Infallibility Unless we say that all have it that call themselves the Church against which many Councils have Judged when they required the rebaptizing of all that were baptized by the Paulianists c. In a word all the Arguments which we use against the Papal Infallibility might be here taken up and Voluminously managed against this And if Mr. Blake disown this Infallibility there is no way left but either to say that God hath no Judgement of this Case but what is fallible which I hope he will not or that God hath one Judgement of it and the Church another and then we have that we seek If he say that God hath no immediate Judgement at all of it but only the Churches which is mediately his I answer 1. The Churches is not mediately his when it is sinfully erroneous 2. If God have a knowledge and observance of it then he hath a Judgement of it But to deny Gods knowledge or observance of it is intolerable therefore 3. And I must say that since I have observed in Scripture both the use that God makes of good Angels and of evil about the sons of men and what appearances they make before him Job 1. and how the faithful have their Angels beholding Gods face how they have charge of us and bear us up and are ministring spirits for our good and how the Excommunicate are delivered up to Satan with much more of the like I easily believe that God may well be said to have a forum and pass his sentences on the sons of men before his Angels were it but by committing his will to Execution by them For so far as they are Executioners they must have a Commission for Execution which containeth or implieth the sentence And so there is a Justification and a Condemnation now before them Argum. 2. If God have no other Judgement about Right to Ordinances but the Churches Judgement then Hypocrites have equal Right before God and before the Church or Judice Deo Judice Ecclesia yea it is the same Right which is more than equal Right But the Consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent A Jew that would make a jest of Christ and Baptism by a feigned Profession hath such a Right Ecclesia Judice as that the Church cannot contradict it But God can contradict it The Church cannot find any imperfection in it but God can Ecclesia Judice his Right is as good as the soundest Believers but God will not say so He may charge the Church with doing him wrong if they deny him the Sacrament but so he cannot charge God if he hinder or prohibit it Surely God will acknowledge a further Title to Sacraments in the Saints than such a Jew or Pagan hath Argum. 3. Where there are different Executions there are different Judgements But God hath an Execution different from the Churches in this Case as is apparent 1 Cor. 11. For this cause many are sick and weak c. If we would judge our selves we should not be judged c. Therefore God hath a Judgement differing from the Churches Argum. 4. If about all humane acts God have a Judgement differing from mans then about the present Case But the Antecedent is so evident and so momentous that I hope few Christians will question it Instead of arguing such a Cause any further I shall lament the case of the Church among us that any should be found among its Reverend Pious Guides that shall so confidently publish or so easily entertain as some seem to do so strange a point as this which we oppose For how far may they yet be led that can so easily be led to this Compassion of the Church of Christ doth urge me to speak thus though I know to the guilty its like to be offensive But yet we may thank God that there be so few of such conceits sure I am it is ordinary with Protestants and Papists in such cases to distinguish between forum Dei Ecclesiae Gods Judgement and the Churches Instead of citing many I shall now take up with one only whose Cause against the Separatists did lead him so much to have entertaâ—ned the helps that lie on that side that if he had thought this notion of Mr. Blakes sound he was very like to have received it Rutherford in his due Right of Presb. Cap. 9. § 9. p. 242. Dist. 1. Any who blamelesly professeth Christ is Ecclesiastically in foro Ecclesiae a true and valid member of the Church visible having Ecclesiastical power valid for that effect but except he be a sincere believer he is not morally and in foro Dei a living member of the invisible Church Dist. 3. The Invisible Church Catholick is the principal prime and native subject of all the Priviledges of Christians the Covenant Promises Title of Spouse Bride Redeemed Temple of the holy Spirit c. And the Church Visible as she is such is no waies such a subject the non-consideration whereof we take to be the ground of many Errors in our Reverend Brethren in this matter which also deceived Papists as our Divines demonstrate Dist. 4. A seen Profession is the ground of members admission to the Visible Church Hence there is a satisfaction of the Conscience of the Church in admitting of members either in the Judgement of Charity or in the Judgement of Verity Dist. 5. There is a satisfaction in the Judgement of Charity Positive when we see signs which positively assure us that such an one is Regenerate and there is a satisfaction Negative when we know nothing on the contrary which hath a latitude for I have a Negative satisfaction of the Regeneration of some whose persons and behaviour I know neither by sight or report This is not sufficient for the accepting of a Church-membership therefore somewhat more is required pag. 244. Concl. 2. The Invisible and not the Visible Church is the principal prime and only proper subject with whom the Covenant of Grace is made to whom all the Promises do belong and to whom all Titles Styles Properties and Priviledges of special note in the Mediator do belong If our Reverend Brethren would be pleased to see this they would forsake their doctrine of a visible constituted Church c. 1. The Church to whom the Covenant and the Promises of the Covenant are made is a Church and a seed which shall endure as the daies of heaven Psal. 89.35 36. and such as can no more fall away from being Gods people in an eternal Covenant with him then their God can alter what he hath spoken or lie Psal. 89.33 34 35. They can no more cease from being in Gods favour or be cast off of God than the Ordinances of Heaven can depart from before God c. Jer. 31.35 36 37. Isa. 54.10 or then God can retract his Oath and Promises Heb. 6.18 19 20. But the Visible Church of this or that Parish c. Pag.
9. § 1. But as he further noteth They that hold that we do uno actu plura ut dissimilia cognoscere must say also that praeter nomen conceptus formalis est idem aequivocis differt ab univocis quòd univoca habent eundem conceptum objectivum similem secus verò aequivoca quae habent plures dissimiles item differunt in conceptu formali quia aequivocus aequivalet pluribus c. These things about the nature of Equivocals being supposed I must next consider of the several terms now in question and examine them hereby as applyed to the Godly and the Wicked And first the Word Church in its general sense is not the thing that we have now in question Otherwise I should soon confess that in all Assemblies there is something common a Congregation of materials is common to them all And thus it may as well be said that the word Ecclesia is univocally spoken of a mutinous confused tumult Act 19.32 39 40. or any other common Assembly as of an Assembly of meer Professors But it is a Christian Church than we are speaking of which being Coetus Fidelium vel Christianorum is differenced from other societies by the Matter and by the End And for the first If bare Professors are but equivocally called Christians or believers in Christ then they are but equivocally Church-members nor a Church as consisting of such but equivocally a Church But the antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent The Consequence is undeniable because it is not a Congregation or Society in general but the Christian Church thus specified by its Matter and End which we speak of as is said The Antecedent I prove reducing the Paronyma into the Abstracts and first of the term Believers If Faith be but equivocally attributed to the bare Professors and the true Believers then they are equivocally called Believers But the Antecedent is true as I prove thus If the name of faith be the same and the ratio substantiae secundum illud nomen be divers then faith ascribed to bare Professors and to true Believers is an aequivocum But the Antecedent is true as is most apparent For that its the same name Faith Belief Believers we are agreed And that it is not the thing in both that is thus named I think we are also agreed For in one sort it is a true saving Faith that is called by the name of Faith and in the other it is no faith at all but the bare verbal Profession of that faith which they have not And I hope we are agreed that faith and the Profession of Faith are not the same thing Object But though this hold as to bare Professors or meer Hypocrites that have no faith yet it will not hold of these that have a faith short of Justifying Answ. 1. It cannot be denied that bare Professors of saving Faith are visible members of the Church though they have no faith at all therefore it must be granted of all them that they are but equivocally Believers and of them is our question 2. I have before proved that it is this profession of a saving faith that constituteth a visible member and therefore all such and only such with their seed are visible members and that it is not the reality of any faith special or common that constituteth a visible member For that which makes visible must it self be visible But so is neither a special nor a common faith for no man knoweth it in another So that à quatenus ad omne à forma ad nomen it is plain that all Professors and none but Professors are visible Members and that if any have the Faith professed special or common that makes them not visible Members but the profession of Faith whether they have it or not So that it plainly followeth that a visible Member qua talis is denominated a Believer only equivocally 3. And if they be denominated Believers ab ipsa fide scil that which is short of Justifying yet its plain that this faith it self is not the same with that of sound Believers no not of the same species Mr. Blake himself being Judge who so keenly girds me for making saving and common faith to differ but in degree when in the very writings that he must fetch the slander from I again and again profess that they differ morally in fâ—ecie If then his lower faith and saving faith do so much differ then there is not the same ratio substantiae secundum illud nomen For I have not yet found that it is a Generical Nature common to both which he supposeth signified by the word faith in our Question much less that Church-membership is constituted by such a thing But if he should come to that I must first desire him to describe that Generical nature and no more to lay it upon the specifical nature either of Dogmatical or Justifying faith and when he hath so done I doubt not to bring many more species that shall on as fair pretences put in for a place as participant in that generical nature as his Dogmatical faith hath done So that by this it is evident that not only the thing which constituteth men visible Church-members which is alwaies in the Adult a Profession and not the Faith professed is but equivocally called Faith but also that the lower faith is equivocally called the Christian Faith But the first alone sufficeth us to prove that visible Members as visible are but equivocally called Church-members because the ratio substantiae is divers secundum illud nomen 2. And it is as plain that bare Professors are but equivocally called Christians For the Ratio nominis in found Christians is true Faith in Christ as Christ but in the other it is only the Profession of such a faith and these are certainly divers And If you again carry the Question to Dogmatical Believers I answer as before both 1. That they are not the persons in our Question 2. That as such they are not members visible no nor mystical 3. That even as to them the Ratio substantiae is so divers as makes the name apparently equivocal 3. The same also may be said of the word Saints Holiness in the Regenerate is the hearty Devotedness and Separation of the Person to God as God Holiness in bare professors who are visible Members is but the verbal Devotion and extrinsick Separation And Holiness in the common Believer is but a half Devotedness and Separation and wanteth the Essentials which the Regenerate have So that it is not the same thing that is called Holiness in these â—hree and therefore the word Holâ—ness as to them is equâ—vâ—câ—l 4. The same also I say of Regeneration The true Believeer is called Regenerate because he is so changed by the spirit as to be as it were born again not of flesh nor of the wiil of man but of God and is become a new creature but the bare Professor is called Regenerate only
because he is baptized and professeth Regeneration and is entered extrinsecally into a new society And the lower sort of Believers is said to be regenerate but only because he hath some common work of another species so that Regeneration is equivocally spoken of these 5. So also is Justification It s clear that it is not the same thing that is called Justification in the one sort and in the other as I suppose will be confessed 6. The same also I may say of Adoption as is undeniable 7. And the same I may say of being in Covenant with God For 1. ex parte Dei with the Regenerate God is actually in Covenant that is as it were obliged to them but to the rest it is but conditionally which will induce no actual Obligation or Debitum till the Condition be performed 2. And on their own part the regenerate are said to Covenant with God principally because they consent to his terms and heartily Accept his Covenant as it is which Scripture calleth sometime their Believing If thou believe in thy heart c. and sometime their Willing whosoever will let him drink of the waters of Life freely so that the Regenerate mans Covenating is alwaies with the Heart and comprehendeth all the Essentials and sometime with the Mouth also But the bare Professors Covenanting is but with the mouth alone and the lower Believers is wanting in the internal Essentials so that it is plain that it is not the same thing that is called Covenanting in them and therefore the word is equivocal And then by this it is put out of doubt that they are equivocally called Church members Because the things forementioned that constitute their Church-membership are not the same If any Papist should here set in and with Bellarmine plead that it is Profession and Engagement to Church Politie that constituteth all Members and that the Church in its first notion signifieth only the visible Body and that Faith and Holiness or any thing intrinsick is not necessary to make a Member but only to maâ—e a living Member 1. I shouâ—d desire such to be at the pains to see what our Dâ—vines Amesius Whitaker and abundance more have said already to shew the vanity of this yea and its self-contradiction 2. Were it not done by so many already I would shew such from many Scriptures and Fathers that the word Church in our Christian sense doth principally signifie the number that are cordially congregate unto Christ and united to him 3. But whomsoever the word is first applyed to it is certain if it be applyed to both that it is equivocal unless you will say that it signifieth some Generical nature in common to both which cannot be as is aforesaid and if it were granted 1. It would exclude the spiritual aggregation to Christ to be the Ratio nominis contrary to Scripture and 2. It would exclude all Saints that have not the opportunity of a visible profession and conjunction with the Visible Body from being of the Church and so from Salvation Or 3. It would make two Churches specifically distinct which both Papists and Protestants do so vehemently disavow Having thus given my Reasons from the common description of Equivocals and the nature of the things why I say that meer Professors and consequently visible Members as such are but equivocally called Believers Christians Saints Members c. I shall next come to Authority and enquire what is the Custom of Divines in this case seeing that Custom is so much the master of Speech and it is only Protestant Divines that I shall alledge because it is for the sake of Protestants that I write to disswade them from siding with the Papists in this point For between them and us it is so antient and well known a Controversie that with men that are exercised in such Writings my allegations will be needless but for the sake of some confident men that have derided the common â—ssertions of Protestant against Papists as if they were singularly mine I shall annex some of the words of our most esteemed Writers by which these men may discern the minds of the rest wishing that such men would rather have been at the pains to have read the Authors themselves than to suffer their passions and tongues to over-run their understandings 1. Calvin in 1 Cor. 12. His interea duobus ep thâ—tis declarat quinam habendi sint inter vera Ecclesiae membra quâ— ad ejus Communionem pr priè pertineant Nisi enim vitae sanctimoniâ Christianum te ostendas delitescere quidem in Ecclesiâ poteris sed ex eá tamen nâ—n eris Sanctificari ergò in Christo oâ—ortet omnes qui in populo Dei censeri volunt Porrò â—anctificationis verbum sâ—gregation in signâ—ficat ea sit in nobis quum per spiritum in vitae novitatem regeneramur ut serviamus Deo non Mundo Unà cum omnibus invoc Et hoc commune est piorum omnium Epitheton Quod exponunt quidam de solâ Professione mihi frigâ—dum videtur ab usu Scripturae alienum est Idem Institut lib. 4 cap. 1. sect 7 De Ecclâ—siâ visibili qué sub cognitionem nostram cadit quale judicium facere conveniat ex superioribus â—am lâ—quere existimo Diximus enim bifariam de Ecclesiâ Sacras Literas loqui Interdum quum Ecclesiam nominant tam intelligunt quae reverâ est coram Deo in quam nulli recipiuntur nâ—si qui Adoptionis gratiâ filii Dei sunt spiricûs sanctificatione vera Christi membra Saepe autem Ecclesiae nomine universam hominum multitudinem in orbe diffusam designat quae unum se Deum Christum colere profitetur In hâc autem plurimi sunt permixti hypocritae qui nihil Christi habent praeter titulum speciem plurimi ambitiosi avari invidi maledici aliqui impurioris vitae qui ad tempus tolerantur vel quia legitimo judicio convinci nequeunt vel quia non semper ea viget disciplinae veritas quae debebat 2. Beza in Confess Christ. fid p. 34. c. 5. sect 8. De veris Ecclesiae membris Vera sunt Ecclesia membra qui characterem illum habent Christianorum proprium id est fidem Fidelis autem aliquis ex eo agnoscitur quòd unicum Servatorem Jesum Christum agnoscit fugit peccatum studet Justitiae Ãdque ex praescripto Verbi Dei. Nam quod ad rel quos homines attinet cujuscunque tandem sint statû◠vel conditionis non sunt numerandi inter Ecclesiae membra etiam si ut ità loquar Apostolatu fungereÌ„tur Sed hîc cavâ—ndum est nè vel ulteriùs progrediamur quà m par sit vel temerè judicemus expectandum enim est Dei judicium in detegendis hypocritis falsi fratibus Et pag. 32. sect 2. he shews unam duntaxat esse veram Ecclesiam and therefore he speaks here of that one Church 3. Junius
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
your own Party that are in all things of your own Opinions If these be your grounds you are utterly schismatical in your foundations though you should actually get all the Christians in Europe to be of your minde O! me thinks men that are humble as all are that shall be saved should be so far acquainted with the weakness of their understandings as to have meaner thoughts of them and not to make them the Standard of the Churches Judgement or the Center of its Peace There 's no two men of you all of one minde in all things among your selves But I confess your faults excuse not mine and I am much too blame if I be not willing to hear of them reform them But I can do nothing against the truth it is not in my power to be of all mens minds when they are of so many and inconsistent If I agree with some Reverend Brethren it must displease the rest by disagreeing from them And therefore I have long resolved to study to please God who may be pleased instead of men and do my best to find out the Truth and entertain it and obey it as far as I can understand it and to propound it to others and leave it to God and them whether it shall be received or not And for my self to be heartily thankful to any that will help me to know more and deliver me from any Error that I am in The Differences that these Brethren have blamed me for are in these three points or four 1. About the Interest of Faith Repentance and other Graces in our Justification Of this I have not heard from any Brother that yet he is unsatisfied since I published my Confession save what is in an Epistle to the Sermons on Iohn 17. to which I have long ago prepared an Answer and the by-exceptions answered in this Book 2. About proving Christianity by Argument of which I have heard from none since I published my Papers against Infidelity 3. About the Universality of Redemption and 4. About the Controversies of this Book For the former of these last I find a Reverend Learned man endeavouring to load me with some note of Singularity I mean D. Ludovicus Molinaeus in his Preface to his Paraenesis ad aedificatores Imperii in Imperio a Book that hath much Learning and more Truth then is fairly used the face of it being writhen to frown upon them that own it and Parties wronged even where Truth is defended though through the unhappiness of the Distinction oft clouded when it seems explicated and through I know not what the Controversie seldom truly stated This Learned man hath thought it meet for the disgracing Amyraldus by the smalness of his success to mention me thus as his only Proselyte in England Forsan eo consilio Amyraldus cudit suam Methodum ut Lutheranis subpalparet gratiam apud eos iniret sperans per eam Lutheranos reconciliatum iri Calvinistis sed reverâ dum falsam studet inire gratiam nulli parti eo nomine gratus est nec ulla parte haeret apud Lutheranos ut censet Calovius clarissimus Wittemberge Theologus nec de vincit sibi Anglos aut Belgas In Belgio enim nulli nisi Arminiano in Anglia uni Baxtero apprime placet ejus Methodus And three leaves after Sed in solatium DallÄ™o ut Amyraldus Baxterum Anglum sic DallÄ™ is Woodbrigium itidem Anglum peperit proselytam admiratorem It is an ungrateful task to answer a Writing whose Error is a multiplication of palpable Uâ—truths in matter of fact for they are usually more unwillingly heard of then committed But I shall lay these following considerations in the way of this Learned man where his conscience may find them 1. If in England Amyraldus Method do please uni Baxtero and yet Dallaeus have proselyted Woodbridge also and Amyraldus and Dallaeus Method be the same Quaer Whether Baxter and Woodbridge are not the same man 2. Qu. Whether this Learned man know the judgement of all England 3. I meet with so many of Amyraldus mind in the point of Universal Redemption that if I might judge of all the rest by those of my acquaintance I should conjecture that half the Divines in England are of that opinion 4. Is it not a thing famously known in England that this middle way of Universal Redemption hath been by Writing and Disputing and preaching maintained by as excellent Divines for Learning Judgement holiness and powerful Preaching as far as we can judge as ever England bred It s famously known that B p Vsher was for it that B p Davenant B p Carleton B p Hall Dr Ward Dr Goad Mr Balcanquall being all the Divines that were sent to the Synod of Dort from Brittain were for it and Davenant Hall and Ward have wrote for it that those holy renowned Preachers Dr Preston of which read Mr Tho. Ball in his life Dr Stoughton Mr Wil. Whately Mr Wil. Fenner M Iohn Ball Mr Ezek. Culverwâ—ll Mr Rich. Vines c. were for it And many yet living do ordinarily declare their judgment that way And are not these more then unus Baxterus An excellent Writing of Ioannes Beâ—gius to that end was lately translated here into English and published by Mr Mauritius Bohemus a Divine residing in Leicestershire 5. Is it not famously known that the Divines of Breme go this way and the Duke of Brandenburg's Divines that Wendeline complaineth to Spanhemius of it and that Ludovicus Crocius Mat Martinius and Iselburge besides the Brittish Divines gave it in as their judgement at the Synod of Dort so that the Synod hath nothing against it and nothing but what this unus Baxterus and all of his mind do readily subscribe to herein Nay is it not manifested that Dr Twiss himself hath frequently written for it 6. Can he that knows the Lutherane and Arminian doctrine believe both these that the Arminians in Belgia are pleased with Amyraldus Method and yet that nullâ parte haeret apud Lutheranos 7. Can he that hath read what Davenant Camero Amyraldus Lud. Crocius c. have written against the Arminians and what Grotius Tilenus and others of them have written against them be yet perswaded that the Arminians are pleased with Amyraldus Method any further then to be less dispeased with it then with some others 8. When Mr Woodbridge doth profess but that he is for Universal Redemption in Davenant's sense especially since he read Daile c. doth this Learned man well infer thence that he was Daile's proselyte when the contrary is intimated yea is the fatetur se nondum concoquentem Amyraldi Methodum true or false 9. When this unus Baxterus did write a Book for Universal Redemption in this middle sense before he ever saw either Amyraldus Davenant or any Writer except Dr Twiss for that way and was ready to publish it and stopt it on the coming forth of Amyraldus and was himself brought to this judgement