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
by combinations of schoolmasters We confess also that the Church is but one as well as they that they are to make the same profession and use the same worship in regard of which they are called visible members and the Church a visible Church as by reason of their faith and the spirit within them it is called invisible as if we should distinguish a man into visible and invisible in respect to his body and soul which make not two men we confess also that there is an ineffectual faith of assent that goeth without a hearty consent and that many are to be admitted by us into the visible Church by Baptism by solemnization upon a bare Profession who have not faith either of one sort or other And we confess that such as so remain in the Church do live under those benefits and means which have a special tendence to their true conversion But yet we very much dâ—ffer in this The Papists make the Primary sense of the word Church to be of the visible Church as the samosius significatum and therefore they say that to be entred by Baptism 1. Into a Profession of assent 2. Into communion in Ordinances and 3. Under one and the same Government or external policy is all that is requisite to make a church-Church-member But we say that the first and famosius significatum is the whole multitude of true Believers that have the spirit of God and his saving Grace and that it is one and the same Church that is called first mystical as being called out of the world to Christ by true faith and then visible because of their Profession of that same faith and therefore if any Profess that faith who are without it these are members but secundum quid or equivocally as the hair and the nails are members of the body which indeed are no members in the proper and first sense or as a wooden leg is a member or as a body without a soul is a man or as the peas or chaff and straw are corn The body may be said to be part of the man when it is animated but a corps or body that never was animated is not properly a part the straw and chaff are called part of the corn-field though indeed but appurtenances to the corn but if there were no corn they should have no such title and when they are separable they shall lose it Moreover t is not a Profession of the same faith that the Papists and we maintain to be necessary to Church entrance For they require as necessary only a Profession of the Dogmatical or Historical faith of Assent aforesaid with a consent to subjection and use of Ordinances But we require a Profession of that faith which hath the promise of pardon and salvation They take their Church-entrance to be a step towards saving conversion and formed faith we take it quoad primam intentionâ—m Christi ordinantis to be an entrance among the number of the converted true Believers and that it is accidental through their failing and hypocrisie that any ungodly are in the Church and so enjoy it's external priviledges and that if we could know them to be such they should not be there it being the work of the Gathering Ministry to bring men to true faith and repentance and of the Edifying perfecting ministry to build them up and bring them on And the Papists themselves having received by Tradition a form of words to be used in Baptism which are sounder then their doctrine and which in the true sence do hold forth all that we say are put to their shifts by palpable mis-interpretation to deprave their own form They do themselves require of the Baptized a Profession that he believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost and when we prove that this is justifying faith and that to believe in doth signifie Affiance the Papists say it is but a naked Assent or Historical faith and when themselves require the â—aptized to â—enounce the Devil the world and the flesh they say that this signâ—fieth no more but that at present they profess so far to renouâ—ce them as to enter into the visible Church as the way to a future saving abâ—enunciation And when themselves do dedicate the person to Christ they say it is but directly to his Church that is to leave the world of Infidels and be numbred with the visible Church as the means to a saving sanctification And these notions they have filed and formed more exactly of late than heretofore to make the snare more apt to catch the simple still magnifying to the uttermost the visible Church-state as the only way to a state of justification and salvation But yet as our Divines have observed against him Bellarmine himself when he hath superficially pleaded his own cause doth frequently in the pleading it let fall such words at unawares that do destroy it and grant what we say As lib 3. de Eccles. cap. 10. he saith Verissime etiam dici potuisse ecclesiam fidelium id est eorum qui veram fidem habent in corde unam esse ecclesia enim praecipuè ex intentione sideles tantum colligit cum autem admâ—scentur aliqui ficti qui vere non credunt id accidit praeter intentionem ecclesiae Si enim eos nôsse posset nunquam admitteret aut casu admissos continuò excluderet yet I confess it is but his nudus ascensus or fides informis that he seemeth here too mean I pray you read over especially his 9. Chap. ibid. There pag. 227 he answereth one of our Objections thus Ad ultimum dico malos non esse membra viva Corporis Christi hoc significari illis scripturis Ad id quod addebatur igitur sunt aequivocè membra c. a multis solet concedi malos non esse membra vera nec simpliciter corporis ecclesiae sed tantum secundum quid aequivocè Ita Johan Turrecremata l. 1.57 ubi id probat ex Alex. de Ales Hugone D. Thoma idem etiam docent Petrus à Soto Melchior Canus aliiâ—qui tamen etsi dicant malos non esse meÌ„bra vera dicuÌ„t nihilominus verè esse in eeclesia sive in corpore ecclesiae esse simpliciter sideles sen Christianos neque enim solae meÌ„bra sunt in corpore sed etiam humores dentes pili alia quae non sunt membra Neque sideles aut Christiani dicuntur tales à charitate sed à side sive ù fidei profesâ—ione It appeareth then that the Papists are put of late to refine this fundamental doctrine of theirs from the soundness that it formerly had among themselves and to fit it more to their own turns And I blame them not because their whole kingdom lyeth on it and would be subverted utterly if the foresaid exposition hold which is so much like to ours It s a cutting objection which turned Bellarmine out of his rode At si ita est
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
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-Church-member ought to be kept from church-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
and Soul too than with the Soul alone this puts us upon a necessity of doing the more in a separation by Church power than else we should do Arg. 9. If no Children of notorious ungodly parents have Right to Baptism 1. then is their Baptism Null 2. And then ours is Null which we received on supposition of the Right of such parents And 3. then must many be baptized again For if Ministers had no power to do it it must needs be Null The determination of this Question about the nullity of Baptism depends upon the true definition of Baptism some only put Gods part and the Ministers into the definition and not the receivers act of profession covenanting or self-resigning to Christ taking him to be no Agent in the Essentials of the Ordinance but a recipient and that the Acts on his part are only Integrals or Duties necessary to his participation of the benefits of the Covenant If this definition hold most common with our Divines then the resolution is most easie For the Minister performed all that was essentiall to Baptism And therefore that which is undone is only the mans duty on his own or childs behalf that which was well done as to the act is not to be done again that is the Ministerial Baptism though sinfully misapplyed but that which was undone that is 1. the persons duty 2. and thereupon Gods Grant actually of the benefits According to this definition of baptism if through error a Pagan be baptized in the true form it is not Null as to that form of the Ordinance nor to be done again when he is converted but only his own duty was Null and to be done again For example if one that cannot speak our Language should be thought to profess faith in Christ by signs and be baptized thereupon and it after appear that it was no such profession but contrary so if we should mistake a Pagans child for a Christians I pretend not to decide the Question Whether this be the rightest definition of Baptism or best Answer to the present Doubt but if this hold as it is common all is clear against the pretended Nullity or re-baptizing 2. If it hold not let the Objectors answer themselves who say that a Dogmatical faith gives right to Baptism We have abundance of people that have not so much as a Dogmatical Faith that know not who Christ is nor what he hath done nor are they in most places since the Directory was in use called to profess their faith when they offer their children to Baptism Are the children of these persons to be re-baptized or themselves if it were their case or is the Administration of the Lords Supper to such a Nullity or only unprofitable I have had the aged here that have said Christ the Son of God was the Sun in the Firmament yet they have had both Sacraments Answer this for your selves 3. But suppose the persons covenanting be essential to Baptism let us so far advantage the Objectors as to deal with them on that ground Answ. 1. I distinguish between the Nullity of the external part commonly called Baptism containing the Ministerial Administration and the persons Reception of the Water and Washing with his profession or external covenant to God And the Nullity of Gods Engagement or Covenant to the sinner actually and so of the sinners Reception of the Benefits of Baptism Among which Benefits I distinguish the special and spiritual as pardon Adoption c. from the more common and external such as are the external Priviledges of the Visible Church Whereupon I answer first to the Matter in these following Propositions and then to the Argument as in form Prâ—po 1. If any essential part of the exterior Ordinance be wanting then it is Null As if the party he not more or less washed If he be not baptized into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost at least implicitely if not by full Verbal expression If the party use but the bare name of God while he professeth or openly discovereth that it is not indeed God the Father Son or Holy Ghost that he meaneth If he openly put in any exception against any essential part of the Christian Faith or Covenant as to say I will only be pardoned by Christ but not sanctified then I conceive it is no Baptism But if there be all the exterior Essentials there the exterior Baptism is not Null nor to be repeated 2. The foresaid exterior Baptism is effectual to the engaging or obliging of the person so baptized And so his own part of the Covenant is not Null A Dissembling promise bindeth the Promiser in Law for his dissimulation cannot hinder his own Obligation though it may anothers Nemini debetur commodum ex proprio delicto 3. But if there be not sincerity in the Covenanter beyond all this his Baptism is not available to the pardon of his sin or to convey to him a Râ—ght from God in any of the Covenant benefits directly as given to him common or special 4. Nor should the Minister or People believe this man if by Notorious Ungodliness he give them reason to take his present Profession to be false and himself now to dissemble 5. But yet seeing a Natural Profession it is though false and the falshood is not declared by him at that time in the Ordinance but disclaimed but only is declared before he comes thither therefore it seems to me that there is the whole external Essence of Baptism and therefore it is not Null nor to be Repeated But if that person do afterward come to the sense of his own Dissimulation and of the want of Truth in his Profession and Covenanting he is to do then that which he did omit before that is to Covenant Truly but not that which he did perform before that is to be externally Baptized Such a person therefore should in the face of the Congregation when he comes to Repentance bewail with the rest of the sins of his life that falseness in the Baptismal Covenant and there unfeignedly renew it To which end among others in the antient Churches it was usual in Confirmation to renew the Covenant more solemnly where any flaw was found in the Baptism which yet did not prove a Nullity 6. And for external Church Priviledges I conceive that as God doth not by Covenant give this person a right to them so it is the Ministers and Peoples Duty to deny them to the Parent himself while he continueth notoriously ungodly and the Error of wrong baptizing him or continuing him in the Church till now will not oblige them to continue communion with him But yet being admitted by Baptism he should be solemnly cast out But if the Guides of the Church be faulty and will not cast him out then must the people distinguâ—sh between communion with him as a Christian in general and as a member of that particular Church as also between communion Moral and meerly Natural and
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
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-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
upon lying fame as it is This is the way to discredit all history when Godly men dare publish that of so many in a County which the whole Country almost that are capable of understanding such marters do know to be false 3. Have we groaned and prayed and suffered so long in hope of Discipline and yet are there Godly Ministers among us that have the hearts to calumniate and reproach the attempts of it where they never had the face to acquaint us with the least mistake or miscarriage in our way Ah what wonder if the poor Church consume away in its corruptions and divisions when this is the friendship and assistance of its guides But of this before The other summary of Mr. Blakes oppositions is pag. 550 551. in his introduction where he thus declares his minde Mr. Blake And truly Sir if I should have a thought of changing my opinion I know not how to look to the end of the danger that will follow I must first necessarily engage my self in an everlasting Schism being not able to find out a Church in the world of any interest in which I shall dare in this account to hold communion Answ. O the power of prejudice What Church in all the world was ever of your Judgement And would you have separated from all the Churches in the world But le ts hear the reasons of your fear Mr. Blake I shall see in many members too clear symptoms of non-Regeneration and Vnbelief Answ. 1. Do not those persons profess a Justifying faith 2. Or is it Infallible symptoms of the contrary which you mean or which are sufficient to nullifie or invalidate that Profession if not you say nothing if so then 3. Dare you hold communion with no Church that hath some members that in your own Judgement are unfit to be there How oft hath this opinion been confuted in the Separatists But you add your reason Mr. Blake Though this will not bear a separation yet this consideration of their non-baptism will necessarily enforce it Answ. 1. The Enemy of the Church needs no hands to do a great part of his work but our own The Anabaptists take us to be all unbaptized and thence infer a necessity of Separation Their Separation troubleth the Church much more than their opinion for re-baptizing Our endeavour is at least to bring them to this that being re-baptized they would rest satisfied and live in peaceable communion with the Church Mr. Blake steps in and confirmeth them in their consequence on supposition of the Antecedent which we cannot satisfie them in and so frustrateth all our labour and gives them the day in that and considereth not I fear the danger of promoting such a schism But he would do well first to answer the many Reasons that Mr. John Goodwin hath brought against that opinion and take his work clean before him If I knew a Church or whole Nation of men that thought verily they were truly baptized and I thought that it was not so if yet they profest true Faith and Holiness I durst not separate from them 2. But how irksom must it needs be to your Judicious Readers to have such conclusions tost up and down with meer confidence upon suppositions which you disdain or deign not to prove One Argument to have proved that our Principles infer the Nullity of the Baptism of the Unregenerate had been more worth than all this kind of talk I say that Deo Judice such men have no Title by any Grant or Gift of God to claim or receive the Sacraments though the Minister have Commission to give it to some unjust claimers This opinion professeth the Nullity of the Title which is denyed Do you prove that it also inferreth the Nullity of the external Baptism it self which was justly administred though unjustly demanded It s tedious to read voluminous Disputes where that which requireth proof is still taken for granted But if all this were so I think you must still be a Separatist on your own Principles For where would you find a Church among us where there be not many that have not a Dogmatical faith which you say must give them Title to Baptism Mr. Blake And if I be holpen out as indeed I utterly despair by any distinction of forum Dei and forum Ecclesiae Vnivocal and Equivocal what thought then shall I entertain of the Holy Scripture Answ. I cannot tell what thoughts you will have of it but I can partly tell what thoughts you should have of it Will you deny that the Scripture most commonly speaks of God himself himself in equivocal terms I hope you will not And how should it speak otherwise to mans understanding And yet what thoughts will you entertain of the Scripture You will not I hope take on you to know no difference between Jesuitical dissembling equivocation which is to deceive and the use of equivocal terms either necessarily for want of other words in being or Rhetorically for ornament or when custome of Speech hath made them the most apt Will you so far equivocate with equivocal terms as to confound the culpable equivocation with the laudable and then say What thoughts shall I have of the holy Scriptures this doth not beseem an Expositor of the Scriptures And whereas you next add the many titles given to the unregenerate I have answered it before and more may do in the next Dispute besides what you had even now from Mr. Rutherford These titles were never given to any of your Professors of a faith short of that which Justifyeth And yet there is no passage in your Book that amazeth me more than your frequent and confident Assertions of the contrary and pretenses of the common Judgement of the Church to be on your side Pag. 116 117. When I had said that Dr. Ward would not have found a second to undertake his cause you say How this passage fell from his pen may well be to very intelligent Reader matter of admiration that a man of such multiplicity of reading should think that Dr. Ward in this opinion would not have found a second when if he had perused our approved Authors about the question especially since it came to a punctual just debate he may soon see that he hath almost every one to appear for him if this which he mentions be his opinion unless perhaps he hath been so held in reading the Fathers and other Writers for the first thirteen or fourteen hundred years in which few will I think come out and vie with him that he hath not regarded what hath been said this 1500 years in this corner of the world Answ. 1. Your groundless insipid scorn about reading the Fathers of the first 1400 years doth no whit clear the Truth nor strengthen your Cause nor I think tend to the pleasing of God 2. One of us have certainly exposed our selves to the Readers when we stand wondering thus at each other and profess our understanding to be at so great
their house yea or will not come to him considering he is made the Ruler over them in order to their spiritual good and they commanded to obey him Heb. 13.17 especially when a Ministers weakness or the multitude of his Parishioners and business will not permit him to seek after them I may conclude therefore that for all the word Dogmatical faith in the Title page this Gentleman is not like to be my Adversary To conclude the Jesuits themselves do witness that the Doctrin which I have in this Book maintained is the ordinary Protestant Doctrine while they concurr in opposing part of it under that title without our disowning it and tell the Iansenians that their Doctrine by which they make the Church to consist only of those that have charity and true Grace is the doctrine of the Protestants as Petavius de Lege Gratia passim p. 28. Auâ—â—enim unà cum charitate ac justitiâ necessario fidem amittebant quicunque lethale aliquod crimen incurrerant dut si fides in illis haerebat adhuc ea minimè suffiâ—iebat ut in Ecclesiae parte aliqua numerarentur Horum utrùm dÃxerint nihil ad haeresim Catholicae fidei â—abem interest Nam utrumque pro haeretico damnatum inter caetera Lutheri Calvinique ante hos Wiclefi nefaria dogmata jampridem Ecclesiasticâ censurâ notatum est Vid. p. 118. de Gratia initiali But it s in regard of the Catholick Church as invisible and in the properest acception that we own this to be our Doctrine As to the rest of Mr Blake's Book and also Dr Owen's Mr Roberts I have said as much as I now intend in the Conclusion of these Disputations If any Papists or other Adversaries shall conclude that we are not of the true Church or Religion because we thus differ and are of so many minds they may as well prove a man to be no member of an Hospital or no Patient to a Physitian because he is not in perfect health or none of the Scholars of such a Master because he knows not as much as his Teacher or as those of the highest form Or that Paul and Barnabas were not both of the true Church because they fell out even to a parting asunder Or that Peter Paul were not both of the true Religion because one of them was to be blamed and the other withstood him to the face because he walked not uprightly and according to the truth of the Gospel an high charge Gal. 1.11 12 13 14. yea they may as well conclude that no man is of the Church while he liveth on earth because while we are here we know but in part and see but darkly or enigmatically as in a glass 1 Cor. 13.9 11 12. and because we account not our selves perfect or to have attained but follow after and reach forth to the things which are before us and press toward the mark and where any is otherwise minded we wait till God reveal this to us Phil. 3.12 13 14 15. Or as if they would make us believe that there are not more differences among the Papists then with us But of these things I purposely speak in some Disputations against Popery which with this are in the Press And lastly for those that will convert the truths which I here maintain into the nourishment of divisions when their nature is to heal either making men Notoriously ungodly that are not and so rejecting them and their Children or withdrawing into separated Churches because such are Baptized or admitted to Communion of whose qualifications they are unsatisfied their guilt is upon themselves The doctrine is not made guilty by their abuse As the ignorant and unlearned have still wrested the Scripture to their own destruction so have the self-conceited and erroneous always misused the Truth it self to the disturbance of the Church It s matter of double Lamentation that yet there should be such Divisions and Parties and Distances when B p Hall's Peace-maker and Mr Burrough's Irenicum have been extant so long Were there but those two Books on that Subject extant in England they will heal or inexcusably condemn our distances And indeed they are Volumns of accusation against us proclaim the shame let me speak what must be spoken even of the Godly yea of the most of the Godly Ministers of these Nations that have yet done no more in this healing work And I intreat all those Ministers People that have time and any regard to my advice that they would diligently read over and over again those two books though they cast by twenty such as this for it And for those that will censure the following disputations as being not levelled to the inâ—erest of their several Parties I shall be no further solicitous to remove their offence And of the foresaid abusers of these reforming reconciling verities I now only crave the sober perusal conscionable Practice of Mr Burrough's 2d 3d 4th and 5th Propotion in in his Irenic Ch. 23 p 163. Had there been but that one healing Leaf or Page in England our wounds would be our shame as truly as they are our hurt and danger Mr Meade on Eccl. 5.1 pag 130 131. Offer not the Sacrifice of Fools for they know not that they do evil MY third Proposition was this That when Sacrifice was to be offered in case of sin yet even then God accepted not thereof primariò primarily and for it self as though any refreshment or emolument accrewed to him thereby as the Gentiles fondly supposed of their Gods but secondarily only as a testimony of the Conscience of the Offerer desiring with humble Repentance to glorifie him with a present by that rite to renew a Covenant with him For Sacrifice was Oblatio foederalis Now Almighty God renews a Covenant with or receiveth again into his favour none but the Repentant sinner and therefore accepts of Sacrifice in no other regard but as a token and effect of this Otherwise its is an abomination to him as whereby men professed a desire of being reconciled unto God when they had offended him and yet had no such meaning Hence God rejects all Sacrifices wherein there is no contrition nor purpose to forsake sin and keep his Commandments which are the parts of Repentance so is to be taken that Isa. 1. To what purpose is the multitude of your Sacrifices Bring no more vain Oblations Incense is an abomination to me And Isa. 62.2 3. And surely he that blesseth an Idol is so far from renewing a Covenant with the Lord his God that he breaks it so did they who without conscience of Repentance presumed to come before him with a Sacrifice not procure atonement but aggravate their breach According to one of these three senses are all passages in the Old Testament disparaging and rejecting all Sacrifices Literally to be understood namely when men preferred them before the greater things of the Law valued them out of their
any shall grounldesly so presume and be mistaken this makes not the Profession Null as to the use which the Church makes of it though it be Null as to the real internal Covenant of man with God or to the Benefits of such a Profession by any grant or Gift from God for in in foro Dei it is no Profession or worse 2. We must take nothing for a Profession but that which hath a seeming seriousness For if it be Notoriously or apparently ludicrous or in a scorn or not meant as it is spoken it is then apparently false and we are not to believe apparent falshoods 3. It must seem to be voluntary or free I deny not but some force may stand with a valid Profession but that is only such a force as is supposed to prevail with the Heart it self and not only with the tongue when the heart is against it If any should say to a Jew If thou wilt not Profess thy self a Christian I will presently run thee through with my sword the words that should be forced by this threat are not to be taken for a true Profession when it is apparent that they are meerly forced by fear So that which done in a passion of Anger or the like contrary to the ordinary prevailing bent and resolution of the heart is not to be taken as a voluntary and valid Profession 4. It must be a Profession not prevalently contradicted by word or deed Otherwise still it is an apparent or notorious lie which no man can be bound to believe If a man say in one breath that he believeth in Christ and in the next will say that he doth not believe in him he nulleth his own profession by a revocation and if he revoke it in the direct sense it is all one as if he did it in the same terms As if he say that he believeth in Christ but withall that he believeth him to be but a man or a Prophet or not to have died to ransom us from our sins c. so if he should say I am a Christian but yet I love the world and the flesh more then Christ the same must be said of a Practical contradiction which is effectual to invalidate a Verbal Profession If a man should profess to the Prince that he honoureth him and when he hath done should spurn at him or spit in his face or if a man should profess that he loveth you and desireth your safety and withall shall discharge a Pistol at you or run at you with his sword I leave it to your selves whether he be to be believed Yet some Contradiction there may be which may not nullifie a Profession As when the terms of Contradiction seem not to be understood by him that useth them or not to be meant in the contradicting sense or when he seem's not to discern the contradiction but thinks both may consist and seems to hold the truth practically and so contradicts it speculatively or ignorantly or when the contradiction is more weak and not seemingly prevalent as I believe Lord help my unbelief 5. When a man hath utterly forfeited the credit of his word the Profession of that man must not be meerly verbal but practicall This is all clear in the Laws of Nature When a man may be justly said to have forfeited the credit of his bare word is a matter of consideration The common reason and practice of men is against trusting a perjur'd mans bare word till he give sufficient evidence of his repentance for that perjury And the like may be said of one that hath often violated Promise and given no Evidence of any effectual change upon his heart but that still he hath the same disposition The Novatians thought that those who lapsed hainously after the Baptismal Profession were not again to be absolved and admitted into the communion of the Church but they did not exclude them from Gods pardon as is commonly believed to them Clemens Alexandrinus and others of those ancient Churches do seem to exclude all from pardon of sin after twice or thrice offending but I suppose they meant it only of hainous sin and of pardon in foro Ecclesiae and not of pardon in foro Dei a distinction that was not then detested The truth is the temper and quality of persons and the nature of the fault and many circumstances may so vary the case that it is not the same Number of promise-breakings or sins after promises that will prove the forfeiture of each sinners Credit Ordinarily in case of gross hainous sin if a man have oft broke his promise his bare word is no more to be taken but an actual Reformation must prove the validity of it But there are some cases in which once or twice breach of promise may forfeit credit as to the Church and some cases wherein more then three or four brecahes may not do it But as for an Infidel that newly comes to the Profession of the Faith or a notorious ungodly man that newly comes to the Profession of godliness we must take their first profession though their lives were never so vicious before because though they have oft committed other sins yet not this of Covenant-breaking with God and they seem to be recovered from their former unconscionableness Perhaps some one will say that if all this be to be look'd after before the validity of a Profession can be discerned then this is an uncertain Rule for us to proceed by in administring the Sacraments for Ministers will be uncertain when all these qualifications are found in mens Professions Besides that it puts tyrannizing power into Ministers hands which you tell Mr. â—ombes of in your book of Infant-Baptism Answ. I have there shewed that the danger is greater in the Anabaptists way of using this power than of ours 2. This objection is as much against them that are for the title of a Dogmatical faith as for us that require the Profession of a saving faith For they cannot be certain of their lower faith it self and therefore must take up with the profession of it and if they will not require all these qualifications forenamed of that Profession then they may as well admit professed Jews and Heathens and they will openly subject Gods ordinances to profanation 3. Because it is a variable case and requireth Judgement in the Administrators therefore hath God made it a considerable part of the office and work of his Ministers to Judge rightly of mens profession that they may discern the meet from the unmeet and therefore hath he required so much prudence and piety in Ministers that they might be meet to judge in such cases To bear these Keyes and wisely and faithfully to discern who are to be admitted and who to be excluded is no small part of their Trust and Power and Work The great necessity of Church Officers and the nature of its Government would be the better understood if this were well considered It is not a
jus Ecclesiastiâ—um and in foro exteriori to be in the visible Church we deny it and he shall never be able to prove it And pag. 20. He hath the like And pag. 23 and 25. passiâ—o the like And pag 20.30 He saith Concl. 2. A serious sober outward Profession of the Faith and true Christian Religion together with a serious Profession of former sinfull courses a serious consideration of these things as such considered abstractâ—vely abstractions simplici from the work 〈◊〉 saving Grace and heart-conversion by true Repentance Faith is sufficient qualification in the Ecclesiastick Court to constitute a person sit matter to be received as a member of the visible Church accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Among these that are within If I be asked what I mean by a serious Profession I Answ. Such a Profession as hath in it at least a moral sincerity as Divines are wont to distinguish though happily not alwaies a â—upernatural sincerity i. e. that I may speak more plainly which is not openly discernably simulate histrionick scenical and hypocritical in that hypocrisie which is gross but all circumstances being considered by which ingenuity is estimate among men giving credit one to another there appears no reason why the man may not and ought not to be esteemed as to the matter to think and purpose as he speaketh from whatsoever habitual principle it proceedeth whether of saving Grace or Faith or of faith historical and conviction wrought by some common operation of the Spirit A man that hath such a Profession as this and desireth church-Church-Communion the Church ought to receive him as a member And all be it I deny not but where there is just or probable ground of suspition that the Profession hath simulation and fraudulent dealing under it as in one new come from an heretical Religion or who hath been before a Persecutor of the Faith and Professors thereof there may be a delay in prudence and time taken to try and prove if he dealeth seriously and ingenuously c. And in Page 150 speaking of my self he saith 1. The Learned Author and I are fully agreed upon the mater concerning the outward ground upon which persons are to be admitted and acknowledged members of the visible Church viz A serious Profession of the faith including a Profession of subjection to the commands and Ordinances of Christ is sufficient for this and that persons making this Profession are without delay or searching for tryal and Discoveries of their heart-conversion to be admitted I do heartily approve his weighty Exhortation subjoyned But I cannot yet agree with him in this that men are not to be received into the visible Church but under the notion of true Believers and positively judged to be such though but probably And Pag. 151. I confess also that were a mans outward carriage and way such as did discover him to be an unregenerate man he were not to be received into the fellowship of the visible Church but wiâ—hall I say He were not to be debarred or not received not upon the account of non-Regeneration or upon that carriage considered under this formality and reduplication as a â—â—gn and discovery of non Regeneration but materially as being contrary to the very outward profession of Faith My reason is because I conceive it is Gods revealed Will in his Word that men be received into the visible Church that they may be regenerate and converted and that the Ministerial dispensation of the Ordinances are by Gods revealed will set up in the Church to be means of Regeneration and Conversion as well as Edification of such as are Regenerate 3. I conceive that between such as are in a course discovering certainly non-regeneration there are a middle sort of whom there is no sufficient ground probably to judge them regenerate My reason is because to gâ—ound a positive act of Judgement that a man is regenerate in foro exteriori there is requisite some seemingness of a spiriâ—ual sincerity in a mans profession i. e that he doth it from a spiritual principle upon spiritual motives to a spiritual End But a meer sober not mocking serious Profession without more is not a positive appearance of spiritual supernatural sincerity I humbly conceive there cannot be had positive probable Evidences of this ordinarily without observation of a mans way after Profession for a time wherein notice may be taken of his walking equally in the latitude of Duties and constantly in variety of cases and conditions To conclude Mr. Baxter and are at agreemâ—nt upon the Matter concerning the quâ—lification that is sufficient for admitting persons into the visible Church viz. Serious profession without delay to enquire for more and so we are agreed in the main about the matter of the visible Church We differ in this that he thinks persons are not to be admitted but under consideration of persons judged at least probably converted and regenerated My mind is that they are to be admitted under the name of serious sober outward Professors abstracting from Conversion or Non-conversion I have thus at large recited the words of this Reverend Brother that the Reader may perceive the true state of the Controversie and how we are agreed in the main and on what grounds he proceedeth and that if there be any that consent not with me in the point wherein he and I differ they may yet be perswaded to take up in his way and not remove so far from the truth as I conceive Mr. Blake hath done And as to the difference it self 1. The main thing wherein I perceive that I differ from this Reverend man and some other about such matters is that my Judgement of Charity is much more extensive then theirs seems to be I confess that when it comes to a confident perswasion of another mans sincerity I am apt to be jealous as well as they and also when we speak of the Profession of men collectively considered I am forced to some harder thoughts of many then some have but when I have to do with Individuals I am apt to extend this charitable Judgment further then I see many do not by making the way to heaven any broader than they For when we are upon the point in thesi what is the proper qualification of a Saint I think there is no difference among us but when we speak of it in hypothesi and of the actual qualification of this Individual person whether he have the foresaid life or not I am apt to think it my duty to judge the best till I know the worst and to hope well though with much fear where some think they see no ground of hopes I confess it seems to me but cold charity that can afford men our good thoughts so far as to take them for visible Church members but can find no room for a hope of their being in a state of Salvation I have hopes of the Salvation of many thousands that I perceive some
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
Scripture so connexed to salvation I know no Regenerate ones but the justified or those that profess to have a justifying faith Nor hath he proved any more Argum. 11. All that are meet subjects for Baptism are after their Baptism without any further inward qualification at least without another species of faith meet subjects for the Lords Supper having natural capacity by age But no one that professeth only a faith short of justifying is meet to receive the Lords Supper therefore no such a one is a meet subject for Baptism Or thus Those at age whom we may baptize we may also admit to the Lords Supper without any other species of faith But the Professors of a meer common faith short of justifying we may not admit to the Lords Supper Ergo c. The duty of a particular examination before the Lords Supper is nothing to our purpose because 1. that makes a man fitter than he was but the want of it is not in the cognizance of the Minister alwaies nor will not justifie our refusal of a godly man excepting some apparent gross evils 2. And it is the necessity of another faith and state that we are enquiring after which will not be proved by the necessity of an actual examination or excitation of our present grace The Major Mr. Blake will easily grant me and if any other deny it I prove it thus 1. It is the same Covenant that both Sacraments Seal one for initiation the other for confirmation and growth in grace therefore the same faith that qualifieth for the one doth sufficiently qualifie for the other For the same covenant hath the some condition 2. They are the same heresies that are conferred in baptism and the Lords Supper to the worthy Receiver Therefore the same qualification for kind is necessary for the reception The Antecedent is commonly granted Baptism uniteth to Christ and giveth us himself first and with himself the pardon of all past sins c. The Lords Supper by confirmation giveth us the same things It is the giving of Christ himself who faith by his Minister take eat drâ—nk offering himself to us under the signs and commanding us to take himself by faith as we take the signs by the outward parts He giveth us the pardon of sin sealed as procured by his body broken and blood shed 3. A member of Christs Church against whom no Accusation must be brought from some contradiction of his first profession must be admitted to the Lords Supper but the new baptized may be ordinarily such at age therefore if he can but say I am a baptized person he hath a sufficient principal title to Baptism coram ecclesia I mean such as we must admit though some actual preparation be necessary unless he be proved to have disabled his claim on that account either by nulling and reversing that profession or by giving just cause of questioning it 4. The Church hath ever from the Apostles daies till now without question admitted the new baptized at age to the Lords Supper without requiring any new species of faith to entitle them to it I take the Major therefore as past denial All the controversie between Mr. Blake and me is like to be about the Minor whether the profession of his common faith short of justifying make people fit for or capable of the Lords supper 1. No man should be admitted to the signal profession of Receiving Christ as he is offered who will not orally profess to receive him as he is offered But all that are admitted to the Lords supper are admitted to the signal profession of receiving Christ as he is offered Therefore no man that will not orally so profess to receive Christ should be admitted to the Lords Supper The Major is plain because 1. Else we cannot know who is fit if he will not make profession of it 2. His refusal shews that he either understandeth not what he doth in the Sacrament or is wilfully uncapable by infidelity or impenitency 3. The Minor is evident in the nature of the Sacrament The offer of the bread and wine with the command Tade eat drink is signally the oâ—fer of the Lord Jesus himself with a command to take him He that puâ—s forth his hand to take the bread professeth thereby to Accept of Christ as offered If it be said that Mr. Blakes professor of a lower sort of faith doth profess to take Christ as offered I say No This proposition I here suppose as evident in it self that no man but the sound Believer doth take Christ as offered no not as Christ. He is offered as a Saviour from the Guilt and Reign of sin and so Mr. Blakes professor doth not so much as profess to accept him For I hope we are agreed that so to accept him heartily is saving faith 2. No man should be admitted to receive a sealed pardon of sin or have it delivered to him that doth not profess that faith which is of necessity to make him capable of a sealed pardon but he that only professeth a faith short of justifying professeth not that faith which is of necessity to make him capable of a sealed pardon Therefore he is not to be admitted to the Lords supper It is a present sealed pardon that they profess there to receive by the very actual receiving God presently offereth and they presently profess to accept it signally and therefore must do so verbally 3. No man is to be admitted to the Lords supper that professeth not true Repentance for sin But Mr. Blake's Professor doth not so for that is inseparable from saving faith Therefore Mr. Blake must deny the Major or say nothing that I can imagine but what is to no purpose And if he do deny it 1. I would desire him once to give us a just Description of that Repentance short of saving which he will be satisfied with the Profession of in his Communicants 2. I must confess as much as I am against separation I never intend to have communion with Mr. Blakes Congregation if they profess not saving Repentance and faith And if he exact not such a Profession I say still he makes soul work in the Church And when such soul work shall be voluntarily maintained and the Word of God abused for the defilement of the Church and Ordinances of God it is a greater scandal to the weak and to the Schismaticks and a greater reproach to the Church and sadder case to considerate men than the too common pollutions of others which are meerly through negligence but not justified and defended And if Mr. Blake be angry at my speaking these things I cannot help it I am bound to tell him of it as a faithful Brother that I doubt not but God is angry at his Doctrine and the great wrong that he doth the Church of God while he is so angry at his Brother for resisting it For my part I would not have done his work no nor justified it as some of his
neer Learned Friends have done for more than I will speak of It s like he will hardly exact a Profession of saving Repentance from the lapsed for their Restoration to the communion of the Church if he will not do it of the Church themselves in their Sacramental communion Argum. 4. Furthermore they that will not profess true Love to Christ as a Redeemer are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper But no man can Profess true Love that will not Profess true faith Ergo c. The Major is proved in that it is a Sacrament of communion in Love We receive the highest expressions of Christs love and are to receive them with gratitude which hath alwaies love in it Argum. 5. They that profess not true Pope of Christs coming in Glory are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper But none can do that but the Professors of a saving faith Therefore the Major is proved because it is the very end and use of the Sacrament to exercise Hope of Christs coming Do this in remembrance of me till I come which Implyeth Expectation or Hope Argum. 6. No man is to be admitted to the Lords Supper that Professeth not a sincere love to the Saints as Saints But so can none do that Profess not a saving faith without contradicting himself Ergo. The Major is proved in that the very business of that Church there next their communion with Christ is to have communion with the Saints in Love and if they be at variance but with one they must leave their gift at the Altar and go first and be reconciled to their Brother and then come and offer their gift But Mr. Blake is so far from excluding the ungodly that he would not have us so much as disswade them from coming Pag. 196. he saith to that 1. It is as I suppose without all Scripture Precedent to warn men upon account of want of a new life by the Spirit wholly to keep off from this or any other Ordinances of Christ that we should warn men upon this account upon this very ground to hold off from all address to Ordinances I have not learnt Answ. That we should disswade them to come till they have that Faith and Repentance and Love to the Brethren which is the fruit of a new life I have proved and more have done it than you will ever well answer And it will not follow as you pretend that then none must come that have not the certainty of their sincerity in the Faith as I shall further shew when I come purposely to your Objections And where you talk of unregenerate mens being incapable of examining themselves it s a great mistake else no wicked man could despair if he be not able to find himself to be wicked And then it would be a sufficient Evidence of Grace for a man to find himself graceless which is a contradiction And it s an unhappy confusion that Mr. Blake is guilty of almost all along while he pleadeth against the Interest of the Regenerate only in the Sacraments that he confoundeth most commonly the Professors of Justifying Faith and holiness with his Professors of a faith short of Justifying and thus in his arguing against Mr. Hooker and Galaspie and others carrieth on the matter in the dark as if these were all one or the arguments will serve for the one that will serve for the other which is meerly to lose his own and his Readers labour or leave him deceived which is worse How many leaves of that volumn and his former of the covenants are guilty of this dark misleading work I could willingly here answer his Arguments for unregenerate mens right to this Sacrament but 1. I shall meet with much more about their pretended right to baptism anon and the answer of those will serve for both 2. And he hath so mixt the two Cases of Professors of saving faith and of not saving together that if I deal with him on the later he may say he speaks of the former The first Argument of Galaspies 201 which he answereth is from the Nature of Sacraments which are to signifie that we have already Faith in Christ Remission of sin by him and Union with him The sense of the Argument is That seeing Sacraments according to Christs institution are confirming signs presupposing the thing signified both on our part and on Gods therefore none should use them that have not first the thing signified by them at least those at age To this Master Blake answereth This to me is as strange as new that Sacramental signs declare shew that we have Faith remission of sins The Sacrament now in question is a sign of the body blood of Christ in whom by faith remission of sins may be obtained I know but that it is a sign either that we do believe or that we have remission of sin otherwise than upon believing to which this engages but not presupposes I know not Repl. Though I undertake not to defend all the Arguments that other men use in this Case yet this doth so much concern the cause of baptism which I am now debating that I shall give you this reply to it 1. The sacramental Actions are signs as well as the substance of bread and wine The Offer with Take eat signifieth the offer of Christ to us to be received and applyed the Taking and Eating and Drinking signifieth our Acceptance Application of him With himself is offered the pardon of sin and given to all that Accept him which by Taking Eating and Drinking we profess to do It is my duty to tell you that it is sad that a Treatise of Sacraments should profess not to know that our believing and Remission is here signified It s pity but this had been known before you had written of them at least Controversally What Divines are there that deny the Sacraments to be mutual signs and seals signifying and sealing our part as well as Gods and how ill do you to wrong the Church of God by seeking to make men believe that these things are new and strange If it be so to you its pity that it is so But sure you have seen Mr. Gatakers Books against Doct. Word and Davenant wherein you have multitudes of sentences recited of our Protestant Divines that affirm this which you call new It is indeed their most common doctrine that the Sacrament doth pre-suppose Remission of sin and our faith and that they are instituted to signifie these as in being though through infancy or error some may not have some benefits of them till after it is the common Protestant Doctrine that Sacraments do solemnize and publikely own and confirm the mutual Covenant already entered in heart as a King is crowned a Souldier listed a Man and Woman married after professed consent so that the sign is Causal as to the Consummation and Delivery as a Key a Twig and Turff in giving possession but consequential to the Contract
wonderful confidence If Mr. Blake will bring as good proof of any converted by it as we can that the eleven Apostles that the Church at Jerusalem Acts 2. and 4. and the rest of the Churches were strengthened by it he will make good that Assertion 3. What he saith of our not having precedents by name is nothing to the purpose If he can prove it of any named or unnamed specially of Societies it will suffice 4. He tels us that The examples of Conversion by the word perhaps well examined would prove short of such Conversion as is here intended The Conversion in Gospel-Narratives is to a Christian profession Repl. 1. This is too unkind dealing for any Preacher of the Gospel to use with that Word which converted him and hath brought in so many thousands to Christ and which he himself preacheth for the conversion of others I should offend the patience of the Reader to stand to confute this by proving that the Word hath been a means of true saving Conversion yea the ordinary means I refer Mr. Blake to what I have said before of the state of the Churches that Paul wrote to Was there not one sort of Ground that received the seed in depth of earth and brought forth fruit Was not Paul sent by preaching to open mens eies and turn them from the power of Satan to God Act. 26 v. 18. Doth not Paul in all his Epistles speak of the Saints as converted savingly by the word of the Gospel What heaps of clear Testimonies might we bring out of his Epistles How contrary is this new Doctrine to the Word and all the ancient Churches and all approved Protestants Judgements I would we had such Evidence of true Conversion now among our Professors as the multitude of Converts gave Act. 2. and 4. and as the Jaylor gave Act. 1.6 and the Eunuch Act. 8. and as Lydia and many other 2. But what if the Word had not truly converted them its somewhat to be brought to an outward Profession of true faith which the rest were that were then Church-members But the Profession of your faith of another species is not the Profession of a Christian Faith though you call it so If you will give me but as good proof of any one baptized person that was brought but to the Profession of this lower Faith as I will give you of multitudes that were brought to true saving Faith by the Word and more to the Profession of it I will say that you have done that which never man did before you I pray make tryal for the proof of some one Well! But the main strength of the Argument which you had to answer was concerning the Promise To which you say 1. When the adversary shall bring a Promise made to the Sacrament for spiritual strength it will happily be found of equal force to the giving of a new life Repl. You next say Implicite Promises may serve Shew but one such You say Every Promise made to the Word is made to the Sacrament Repl. Prove that and take all Though we have no Promise particularly of converting this or that man by the Word yet we have that it shall convert many in general Shew where is a word of Promise that the Sacraments shall convert any one Sure if Paul had but had such a Promise of converting men by Baptizing them as he had of converting them by Preaching Act. 26.17 18. and elswhere he would never have said I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus c. for I am not sent to baptize but to Preach the Gospel 2. We find where in that Sacrament men have Communion of the Blood of Christ and of his Body and are partakers of the one Bread and have communion with one another and are helped by it in calling to Remembrance Christ death in hope of that coming all which are undoubtedly strengthening 1 Cor. 10 16 17. 11.25 26. Act. 2 c. But you cannot shew where ever any was either united first to Christ or his mystical Body by the Lords Supper or where it was appointed to be used to any such end or where ever any generaral or Implicite Promise of such a thing is made The tenth Argument was from the expresse danger of unworthy receiving 1 Cor. 11.17 The summ of the answer is That This Argument would take off every Ordinance from the honor of Conversion Repl. But I conceive that the strength of the Argument or that which ought to be its strength is wholly overlookt which is not from the Necessity of a Preparation in general but of a special Preparation or Worthiness which is not so pre-requisite to the fruitful use of converting Ordinances There is a saying by the superfluity of naughtiness malice c. requisite before a man can in reason expect that the Word should convert him and yet it may convert thousands that are not so far prepared by doing that and the rest But the Worthiness of a Partaker of the Lords Supper must be more than this For 1. That which the Church is Judge of must be that the Receiver be a Church-member professing true Faith and not contradicting that Profession by a scandalous life 2. Himself is required to examine himself for more that is whether he be sincerely what he Professeth and Christ be in him or else he is a Reprobate and not to take the childrens bread 2 Cor. 13.5 and also that he have a Particular Preparation according to the nature of the Ordinance It s expresly Necessary 1. That he discern the Lords Body 2. That he do this in remembrance of Christs death and with a hope of his coming and 3. For communion with Christ and his Church and to be partakers of the one bread 4. And with a Heart to take Christ and Eat that is to feed on him by Faith when he takes the bread But all this cannot be done by the unregenerate nor is this prerequisite before a man come to the Word that it may convert him That Preparation which is pre-requisite in a meet receiver of the Lords Supper it was not instituted to effect unless as it may do it when God sees good in an unworthy or prohibited use But true Faith and Repentance are Preparations pre-requisite Ergo c. You cannot say that to the hearing of the Word as a means of conversion true faith and Repentance is so requisite The text you mention 1 Pet. 2.1.2 I say again speaks of the confirming and edifying use of the word and not of the converting use The converted must bring true saith to the Word if they will expect encrease of it but the unconverted must not needs bring true faith if they will be brought to believe by it 3. Yet remember that we say not that men ought to forbear coming that are unconverted but that they ought to come but how To believe and repent and so to come and to do it in this order and no
other and they ever lye under all this Obligation You next instance in Prayer and conclude that As for Prayer there is no more ground or colour to make it a converting Ordinance than the Supper c. Repl. 1. A man that hath but common desires may be perswaded to ask for what he so desires Though he have no Promise of Acceptance you do not find him threatned with judgement for such a Prayer so it be not groslâ— hypocritical or wicked as he is for unworthy receiving the Supper without a discerning the Lords Body 2. When we exhort any man to pray for Christs pardon the Spirit c. we therein exhort him to desire them for desire is the soul of Prayer and the chief part of its essence Now the first of these desires which we exhort them to is conversion it self even that they would turn to God by a change of their wills and express them in Prayer 3. I can shew you where the wicked are commanded to seek the Lord that is by Prayer to express their returning hearts which implyeth their returning it self but you cannot shew where ever they are commanded to communicate with the Church in the Sacrament but in this order first to be converted and repent and so baptized and so communicate or if Baptized already to be Penitents first and Communicants next But if you would have all exhorted to the Lords Supper for conversion whom we are bound to exhort to Prayer for conversion you would do that which I confess I dare not do The 11. Argument was that Ordinance which is Eucharistical and consolatory supposeth such as partake of it to have part and portion in that thing for which thanks is given c. but c. To this it s answered that the assumption might as well have bin of the Word and Prayer which are Eucharistical and Consolatory Repl. 1. To hear a Sermon is not to give thanks 2. The Application of the Word must be according to mens various states An unregenerate man may take this for consolation If I be converted and repent and believe I shall be saved A true believer may apply it to another measure of consolation because I am a believer this Promise is mine that is secureth me of the benefit Now if the Impenitent and unbeliever shall do the later he sins such another sin as if he received the Sacrament which is an Ordinance Instituted for personal assumption and application of the general Promise 2. As for Prayer 1. To petition is not to give thanks 2. And for Thanksgiving it self an Impenitent man may not give thanks for true saving faith Repentance part in Christ and hope of Glory though he may for the mercy that he hath because he may not lye Now in the Lords Supper we must give thanks for our part in Christ and pardon and life through him or at least for the present Gift of Christ to us which we consent to accept It s added This Ordinance is not wholly Eucharistical c. It is for humbling as well as for comforting Repl. But if the other use be common to it with other Ordinances and here Inseparable from the Eucharistical then other Ordinances may be used to that end but this may not by him that may not do both because if he receive the Sacrament he signally Professeth both The substance of the twelfth Argument with its answer is spoke to before where Mr. Blake saith that The unregenerate may so far be suitably worthy for this work that he may know himself called to it and that it would be his sin to hold back from it and he may hopefully expect a blessing in it I reply 1. That he is called to it remotely that is first to repent and believe and to communicate we yield and that it is every mans sin that keeps off that is that comes not in this order But that he may lawfully come before this Repentance you never proved nor shall do I think 2. I would you could shew us on what ground he may hopefully expect a blessing in it True hope goeth not beyond the promise but the unregenerate have no promise unless the Arminians be in the right of a blessing on any Ordinance much less on that which they cannot prove that they may use till they are converted Yet Hope in a larger sense they may have where they can prove that God hath set them a work though they have no promise But that 's not here The 13th Argument is That Ordinance which was instituted for Communion of Saints is intended only for Saints c. It s answered by distinguishing of Sants as such by calling and separation for God or regeneration and that the Lords supper is the priviledge of the Church as visible Repl. Its one thing to ask Who may demand it and come there and another to ask To whom may we give it We may give it to all professedly separated for God None may ask or take it but those that are heartily separated to God But your Professor of a lower faith is neither of these and therefore may neither seek it nor may we give it him if he do seek it Whoever professeth himself separated for God doth profess saving sanctification which consisteth therein Self and Earth is highest in all the unregenerate therefore they are not separated heartily to God The 14th Argument was If Baptism it self to the adult is not regenerating or converting then not the Lords supper but c. This Argument Mr. Blake hath no more to say to but that this seemeth to suppose an opinion of Conversion by the very work done which he disclaimeth But here is no such supposition at all intimated and he should have dealt with it as he found it and not so have bawkt it especially when Mr. Gilaspie had so explained and confirmed it And because Mr. Blake thought best to silence Mr. Gilaspie's proof of his Assumption and I think it worthy the Readers observation at least that he may see how far Mr. Blake is from truth in his affirmations of the singularity of my opinion I shal here transcribe them Aaron 's Rod blossoming pag. 514.515 The assumption that baptism it self is not a Regenerating Ordinance I prove thus 1. Because we read of no persons of age baptized by the Apostles except such as did profess faith in Christ gladly received the Word and in whom some begun work of the Spirit of Grace did appear I say not that it really was in all but somewhat of it did appear in all 2. If the baptism of those who are of age be a regerating Ordinance then you suppose the person to be baptized to be an unregenerate person even as when a Minister first preacheth the Gospel to Pagans he cannot but suppose them to be unregenerate But I believe no Conscientious Minister N. B. would adventure to Baptize one who hath manifest and Infallible signs of unregeneration Sure we cannot
faith 2. But a proper right from promise or proper gift which may warrant them to claim or require the thing from God or man this I deny to any but true believers and their seed They may not lawfully require it though we must give it them if they do require it upon such a profession 3. But without a profession of saving faith they may neither require it nor we give it if they do require it whatever other short faith they have or profess 4. Thus also the Case was with the Jews allowing the difference made by the foresaid peculiar Promise to them ARGUMENT II. Mr Blake Those that are a People by Gods gracious dispensation nigh to God comparative to others have right in the sight of God to visible admittance to this more near relation This I think is clear men have right to be admitted to their right But those that come short of Justifying faith are a people by Gods gracious dispensations nigh unto God comparative to others this is plain in the whole visible Nation of the Jews as appears Deut. 4 7. Psal. 147.19 and 148.14 Those therefore that are short of Justifying faith have right in the sight of God to admission to this nearer relation ANSWER The Jews were nigher to God than other people 1. In that they had the offers of Grace which other people had not 2. And many great Deliverances and temporal priviledges which others had not Both these Infidels and Heathens may now have and therefore they prove no Right to Baptism 3. They were nigher by some promises peculiar to that Nation which is nothing to us 4. They were nigher by their Consent to the offers of Grace and the Covenant of the Lord which was proper in sincerity to the sanctified 5. And by their profession of Consent and external engaging themselves to the Lord whether they had inwardly faith or not Now to the Major I grant it but add that the three first sorts of Nearness give not right to Baptism All admission to near Relation comparatively to others is not by Circumcision or Baptism But it is only a Nearness in the two last senses that are questionable as to this And I have before shewd in what sense true Consent to the Covenant gives right and in what sense an outward profession of Consent gives right and that your common faith gives none in either sense Lastly if your conclusion were granted it s nothing to our question For as is said all admission to near relation is not by baptism One Infidel may be nearer God and the Kingdom of Heaven then another and yet 〈◊〉 be baptizable for all that ARGUMENT III. Mr. Blake Those that God ordinarily calls his People and owns as his openly avouching himself to be their God have right in the sight of God to the signs and cognizance of his People and are to have admission into the society and Fellowship of his People This is plaâ—n if God in Covenant will own servants then his stewards may open the door to them if he will own sheep his servants doubtless may mark them But God owns all in visible communion though short of faith that is Justifying as his People and openly avouches himself to be their God as in abundant places of Scriture is evident See Deut. 26.18 These have therefore right to the signs and cognizances of his people to admission into the Society and Fellowship of his People ANSWER 1. To the Major with the fore-mentioned distinction of Right applyed as before I grant it 2. To the Minor I say God owneth them as his people by internal consent and covenanting who indeed are so and he owneth them as his People by outward Covenanting or Expression or Profession of consent who are such But those that have neither of these but only profess some shorter faith or consent to some other Covenant or but part of this he will not own in either relation nor would have them taken into the Communion of his Church Nor do you prove any such thing for Deut. 26.18 is so much against you that I marvel you were not troubled at the citing of it For that Text alone is enough to confute all your pompous allegations out of the Old Testament from the Church state of the Jews The words are Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walk in his waies and to keep his Statutes and his Commandments and his Judgements and to hearken to his voice And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people c. Do you think that they that in heart consent that the Lord be their God and to walk in his waies c. have not saving faith Then there was no such thing then on the earth And if they had such faith who sincerely consented then they Professed such faith that Professed such consent And the word avouching sheweth that it was present profession and not only a promise for some distant futurity This Argument therefore is but like the rest ARGUMENT IV. Mr. Blake Those whom the Spirit of God ordinarily calls by the name of Circumcision they had a right in Gods sight to Circumcision and those of like condition have like right to baptism This I think is clear the Spirit of God doth not mis-name doth not nick-name nor ordinarily at least give equivocal names But men short of Justifying faith are called by the Spirit of God by the name of Circumcision as needs no proof Christ was a Minister of the Circumcision Rom 15.8 And he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Those then of a faith short of that which is Justifying have right in the sight of God to Baptism ANSWER 1. I have no need to deny the Major but it is not sound for they are called the Circumcision i. e. the Circumcised because they were actually Circumcised and not because that all that were so had right to it 2. To the Minor I grant it but with this note that it is not because of their short faith that they were to be circumcised but upon the Parents or their own profession and sincere consent to the Covenant The Conclusion again containeth not your Thesis There 's nothing in it about giving title or any thing of necessary connexion ARGUMENT V. Mr. Blake Those that are the servant of God whom God owns as his servants have right in his sight to be received into his house and to be entitled to the Priviledges of his Church This we think should not be denyed and that God will take it ill if any shall deny it But men short of that faith which Justifies are owned of God as his servants as is clear Lev. 25.41 42. There every Israelite that was sold to any of the Children of Israel and his Children are called of God his servants and that as Israelites of which a great part were void of that faith which Justifies Therefore those that are short of faith
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
Godly may both scorn in press and pulpit persecute and kill each other As one Godly man may persecute another for some Truths and Duties which he knows not to be such so in particular it is possible that such may imagine that private Meetings tend to schism or proud singularity and so may deride them Or he may by strangeness to them entertain some false report of the stricter Professors of Religion as if they were proud humorous schismaticks disobedient and differed only in these things and not in true piety from others And I believe I have known some in former times that were such who had such thoughts as these of all the Godly that were not conformable and of others that used any private Meetings living where they had little acquaintance with any of them save two or three that by scandals increased their prejudice and hearing no better language of them these persons would reproach them as bitterly as most that ever I heard and yet themselves lived not only uprightly to men but so piously that they seemed to hate all profaness and spent more time in secret prayer and reading then most I have known It is not therefore all scorn or persecution of Godly persons Doctrines or Duties that will prove a man to be Notoriously Graceless or Ungodly But again left any Ungodly person take occasion of presumption from all this let me add this much more 1. Though another cannot know such to be certainly ungodly yet they may know it by themselves who know their own ends and reasons better then we can do And alas the souls of such are never the safer because we are bound to judge charitably of them This is but to prevent our wronging them but it will not prevent their damnation 2. Though we know them not to be certainly ungodly yet God doth and it is he that must judge them And therefore he will put many a thousand out of heaven whom we may not put out of the Church When the Tares and Wheat are so mixed that we cannot pluck up the Tares without plucking up the Wheat that is in doubtfull inevident cases there we must let both grow till the time of harvest both in forbearing persecution by the sword and Excommunication but then God will sever the wicked from the just and gather out of his Kingdom all things that offend and them that work iniquity and cast them out into the lake of fire 3. And our selves may see cause enough to bewail the misery of many as too probable whom yet we cannot certainly conclude to be miserable yea we have cause to call them out of our communion of which more anon I must therefore intreat two sorts of Readers that they do not mis-interpret these foregoing passages First The Vngodly are desired to beware that they pervert not this to their own delusion nor to the opening of their mouths against the teachings and censures of the Church I cannot but fore-see that such will be prone to draw venom out of necessary truths and to say I may be godly and be saved though I pray not in my family though I swear or be drunk c. But such must know 1. That they cannot be saved if in the bent of their lives they live after the flesh and if God be not dearer to them than all the world and if their hearts be not more on heaven than on earth and if the main aim and business of their lives be not for God and the life to come nor can they be Godly or saved unless they truly hate their sin and long to be rid of it and are willing to be at the cost and labour of using Gods means by which they may be rid of it unless in the bent of their lives they overcome gross sin and live not in it and groan under their infirmities desiring to be rid of them feeling the need of a Saviour and flying to his blood for pardon and to his word and spirit for cure All this must be in every one at age that will be saved Now though we may be uncertain of a mans ungodliness by one or more such fals as Peters or Davids were when the bent of his life appeareth to be holy yet if the bent of your lives be carnal and you have not all this that I have now mentioned then you may be sure that you are Graceless though you never commit any scandalous sin much more when you live in them 2. And remember that you may know your own hearts and secret lives when we cannot It s no comfort to you therefore that a Minister is not certain of your Gracelesness if you be indeed Graceless what if we must hope the best who know not the worst alas this will be no relief to your souls Nor should you be offended if Ministers in preaching and personal reproof do speak terror to you for all this For 1. they preach to you as described in a graceless state and not named 2. They must tell you what every sin deserves and whither it leads and tell you of the sad probabilites of your damnable state though they have not a certainty 2. I foresee also that some Godly people will think that these passages though true may accidentally harden the wicked in their sin and therefore that this will do more harm than good To whom I say 1. That the wicked will draw evil from the most certain truths and all must not be concealed which they will abuse 2. Yet I must confess that my own heart made this Objection which caused me to think this Paper my self unfit to be published and so I did this two years lay it by And had I not understood that from the Coppy which I sent one friend so many are communicated and at such a distance into the hands of strangers and that somewhat defective and had I not been acquainted that they will print it if I will not it might have yielded still to this Objection for ought I know for had I been left to my own choice I should have laid it in the dark Now for the Affirmative I will shew you whom we may take for Notoriously ungodly and then I will shew you whom we must judge probably to be godly and whether we must not exclude some persons and refuse their Infants who yet are not Notoriously ungodly 1. A man that not inconsiderately or in a Temptation but deliberately and obstinately denieth any fundamental Article of the Christian faith is notoriously ungodly for he cannot have a godly heart that excludeth the necessary principles of Godliness from his head I mean those Truths without which there is no salvation for surely without them there can be no Grace He that denieth thus the God head or the Goodness Wisdom or Power of God or the Incarnation Holiness Death Ransom of man thereby Resurrection Rule or Judgement of Jesus Christ or the everlasting life that he giveth to Believers or the
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
first place to hold communion with any Christian Church or to be guided by the Ministers of Christ according to his Word while they refuse to perform these necessary parts of Christian duty after due admonition and give no tolerable reason of their refusal are groundedly to be presumed to be persons ungodly Object But I know some dissenting Brethren will say what a Labyrinth do you bring the Church into on your grounds while we must judge of mens sincerity we are left at uncertainty and who knows among al these difficulties whom to judge godly and whom ungodly Thus Ministers are made Lords of the Consciences of men or enabled to tyrannize Answ. 1. Where the case is most Notorious there needeth no Judge Where the Probabilities are such as require a Determiner it is the Ministers Office and a main part of his work of necessity to the Church and not to be called or accounted Tyranny 2. But it is an easie matter to cavil at large against almost any cause Destructive arguing is the easiest But incommodum non solvit Argumentum The thing I would see is a better way Do our Brethrens Grounds afford us any better footing Quest. 1. Will you take any verbal profession as a title or not If any whatsoever then if a man tell you I will come such a day and in scorn to Christ profess Christianity or if he tell you when he hath done I did but dissemble for fear or favour or if he deride while he doth it or contradict it in other words you will take it for good Or if a man come drunk to present his child in Baptism as they have done to me to require it Or if he fall a swearing and cursing at the Ordinance Or say I will never be ruled by Christ or Scripture If any profession must serve then these But I hope not so If not any whatever Then 1. Tell us how you will distinguish will you not reject all that is apparently lying How will you difference between Truth and a lye what cross evidence will you take for currant tell us that we may also know If only words than what if a man worship actively the Sun or Moon while verbally he makes the Christian profession will it not disable and discredit his profession with you what if he have for twenty years O that I had none such neer me been drunk once a week or fortnight and sometime thrice a week and still confess it and promise amendment Is his word to be taken 2. If you were to baptize an Aged man that comes new into Christianity would not you be the judges whether his profession seemed serious or not and proceed on meer probabilities as well as we 3. Do you not in admitting persons to the Lords Supper make your selves judges whether his profession be serious yea and take in his conversation for evidence and are you not put in all this upon the same uncertainties and to the use of probabilities as we 4. So you do I suppose in excommunication for impenitency Or at least in case of absolution of the penitent will not you be judges on probable grounds whether his Repentance seem serious and take a violent presumption as ground for some determinations Yet I hope in all this you are no tyrants There is a necessity of a standing Ministry to decide such matters and rule the Church therefore are such matters to be decided by them The fourth Disputation Whether any besides Regenerate Believers have a Right to the Sacraments given them by God and may thereupon require them and receive them WE take it for granted that the Right of Infants is upon the account of their Parents Faith and Dedication of themselves and theirs to God and that they are uncapable themselves of requiring the Sacraments And therefore we shall make but little mention of them in this Dispute but manage it with special respect to the Adult seeing the Case of Infants will be that way best resolved We mention Regenerate Believers to signifie those men who perform that Faith which is the condition of the Gospel-Promise commonly called justifying or saving Faith By Sacraments we mean Baptism or the Lords Supper The principal thing that needeth Explication is the word Right And it signifieth divers things according to the several Objects and Acts to which it is related 1. A man may give Right to a Benefit and another receive it divers waies Either by a Premiant Law if he be a Superiour in Rule or by a Testament Promise or other Donation or Deed of Gift or by Sale Exchange or other contract by way of commutation The last is nothing to our case as the Right is made over to us for we could not purchase it though the Right that Christ hath to convey it may be fitly said to be due in Commutative Justice as being purchased by him The Right which we have to Benefits from God is alwayes by free Donation for we are capable of no other and by a Donation that partaketh of the natuâ—e of a Law This Deed of Gift is called a Promise Testament Covenant c. in Scripture for the single promise of God is oft called a Covenant the Nature of this Right to Benefits consisteth in the Debitum habendi the Dueness of them to the person from another This Right is said to be Given because it is it self a Benefit as being Right to a Benefit and the Party is said to have it 2. Another kind of Right to Benefit is that which accidentally and indirectly ariseth from another mans Duty As e. g. the Physician of an Hospital commandeth his Apothecary to give so much of such a precious Cordial to every one of his Patienâ—s who fainteth or falls into a Lipothymie but not to the rest Some of the Patients that they may partake of the Cordial pretend to faint or swoun The Apothecary doth his best to discern whether they dissemble and cannot discern it Hereupon it is his duty to give it these as well as to others because he that commanded the Administration intended not that he should know the heart or be infallible but should proceed according to his best skill and judgement or else he must do nothing So that esse apparere non esse non apparere is all one to him The dissembling of the Patient doth accidentally occasion or cause it to be his duty to give him the Cordial And when it is become his duty to Give it the Patient may so far be said to have Right to it as that he may justifie his demand before any Physitians that are unacquainted with his dissimulation and the Apothecary had truly a Right or Power to give it and may justifie it before any Yet this is but improperly called A Right to the Cordial and properly it is but to be the Object of the Just Action of the Administer For though the Apothecary had warrant to administer it upon a claim though wrong
these to be his people Deut. 26.17 who are yet in an unregenerate state Ans. By some way obliged you mean either conditionally and so he is obliged to all the present living Infidels that ever heard the word if not to all the world or absolutely or actually and for the later let Mr. Blake on the next page answer Mr. Blake on this page his words are Did ever man speak of an absolute tye in a conditional covenant whether the conditions be kept or no that therefore before mentioned which he calls the great question is no question at all It were madness to affirm that which with these limits he thus denies The Condition suspendeth the Actual Obligation or at least the Right given beyond all controversie Indeed if the stipulation were only in diem and not conditionally then the thing promised were presently Due that is to be hereafter received and the promissary had jus ad rem though not statim possidendi statim crederet dies etsi non statim veniret dies For in a stipulation in diem crescit dies quia statim debetur sed nondum venit quia non efficaciter peti potest But in a promise conditional there is no right in the promissary nor proper actual obligation on the promiser till the condition be performed And if Mr. Blake deny this he should have told us what it is that God is actually obliged to do on mens bare profession or common sort of believing But this he could not do without contradicting himself and the truth And for Gods avouching Israel to be his people I answer 1. He avouched them all to be what they were that is a people that had actually made an open profession of consenting to his covenant and had ore tenus taken him for their God 2. He avouched them to be his people also because that very many how many Gods knows were sincere in this covenant and the whole may be denominated from the better part especially if also the greater as our Divines use to tell the separatists that as a field that hath much Tares is called a Corn-field not from the Tares but the Corn which is the better and valued part so the Church is so denominated say they from the sincere Believers 3. He avouched them to be his people in regard of his peculiar choice of Israels seed to those temporal Mercies and priviledges which they had a promise of above other Nations of the earth as many such are known What benefits the Hypocrites had shall be enquired into anon Ob. 5. The Jews had much advantage and the Circumcision much profit every way Rom. 3.1 2. Answ. The great advantages of the whole Nation were principally for the sake of the Elect as the third verse following sheweth and many mercies the rest had by being among them which were not by a Moral Donation given particularly to those Professors but to the Nation denominated from the better part 2. The Unbelievers or Ungodly had much advantage by providential disposals planting the spiritual Church among them c. of which they had themselves no proper grant by donation and to which they could lay no claim that was justifiable before God And they had much accidentally from the Ministers Commission as is before explained And thus the ungodly may have still both Word and Sacraments and outward Communion with the Church and much of Gods protection and blessing for the sake of the godly to whom they joyn themselves by outward profession But this is formerly answered and so are all the rest of the material Objections that I remember in my Apologie to Mr. Blake and therefore I shall to avoid further tediousness refer the Reader thither and if he have read that and this I think he will not need more words if he read not in the dark to save himself from being deceived by any of the rest of Mr. Blake's Replies Only one or two of his Summaries I shall examine as I finde them set together pag 141 142. and pag. 551. Ob. 6. Saith Mr. Blake pag. 141. My third Argument to prove that a Faith short of Justifying may give Title to Baptism is to make the visible seal of Baptism which is the priviledge of the Church visible to be of equal latitude with the seal of the Spirit which is peculiar to invisible members is a Paradox When I put him to prove that this Paradox is mine in the generality here exprest he proves it from my own words where I say We give the seal of Baptism to all that seem sound Believers and their seed and we say the seal of the sanctifying spirit is only theirs that are such believers I am convinct beyond denial viz. To seem believers and to be believers is all one and seeming believers and real believers are terms of equal latitude And thus I am confuted as Mr. Blake useth to confute me no doubt to the full satisfaction of some of his Readers The Visible Seal may be said to be of equal latitude 1. Either in regard of a Title by Moral Donation which Coram Deo will warrant a Claim and Reception and so I say that saving faith and such a Title to Sacraments with the adult are of equal latitude 2. Or in regard of the justifiableness of a Ministers Administration and the persons claim Ecclesia judice and so they are not of equal latitude But saith Mr. Blake For his distinction which he hints here and plainly delivers elsewhere of Right in foro Dei and in foro Ecclesiae both to Covenant and Baptism I suppose considerate men will pause upon it before they receive it especially in the sense which he puts upon it I like considerate pausing Readers But le ts hear your Reasons 1. Saith Mr. Blake they may press him with his own Rule Ubi lex non distinguit non est distinguendum such a Right to visible Ordinances before men never granted of God I would fain learn Answ. But I know not what Teacher you would fain learn of Far be it from me to imagine that I can teach you in any thing But yet I may presume to tell you though not to teach you 1. That as is often manifested such an improper right may result from the Precept or Ministerial Commission to give the Sacrament to Believers or Professors of Faith that claim them without a Donation of Title to themselves to warrant that claim 2. That the nature of things must be distinguished from those Morals which the Law must constitute I am of opinion that we need not go to the distinctions of the Law to prove either that God and the Church are not all one but are really distinct or that the Understanding and Judgement of God and of the Church are not all one or that Gods Approbation Justification or Condemnation is really distinct from mans 3. There are some necessary Distinctions afforded us by that Doctrine which treats de legibus in Genere which we