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
ungodly ones as being as Notoriously no Christians 2. But if all this were unproved yet still it is sufficient to our purpose in hand that the Church-Guides are at present bound to Excommunicate them And sure they cannot at one and the same time be bound to cast out him and take in his child upon his Right into the number of Christians It s Objected The Excommunicate are members under cure Ans. Those that are but pro tempore suspended from some particular acts or parts of communion are so and those that are only cast out of an Incorâ—orated Church and not the Universal or from among Christians as Christians But for the rest that are so cast out the case is otherwise Many different acts of the Church and cases of the persons are usually confounded under this one word Excommunication Object Austin complains of one that had Excommunicated one Classicanus and with him his whole Family which he dislikes because the son must not suffer for the fathers sin Answ. What is this to our business We plead not for Excommunicating any child for the Parents sin but for not Admitting them at first into communion when the Parents have lost their Right and the child is born after 2. What if by the Law of the Land a Traitors Estate be forfeit if his Heir therefore receive not that which he could not give him because he had lost it will you say that this is contrary to Gods Ordination that the Son shall not suffer for the Parents sin The Son may yet have some priviledge from a Father which he could not have were that Father an Infidel or excommunicate person and therefore all the world have not the same Priviledges as the Church So much of that Argument Arg. 16. Those whom we may justly Baptize supposing them of age and natural capacity we may justly admit to the Lords Supper while they are no worse than they were at Baptism But we may not admit a notorious ungodly person to the Lords Supper Therefore we may not justly Baptize such And consequently not their children upon their account The Major is plain No Church-member ought to be kept from Church-communion in the Lords Supper but upon some just Accusation of a crime which he is since guilty of more than he was at his Admittance But the Baptized are Church members Ergo c. It is by one objected that this is the Anabaptists Argument or one to this purpose to keep out Infants because they are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper Answ. That is for want of natural capacity to use the Ordinance and not for want of a Right if they had such capacity But for men at age I suppose it past doubt that you may admit them to the Supper on the same qualifications as to state worthiness on which you may admit them to Baptism Object The Baptized are Incipientes the Communicants Proficientes Therefore there must be more in all Communicants then is requisite in the Baptized Answ. There ought to be more because they ought to grow in grace But 1. it is not requisite that they be in any other state then the Baptized Nor 2. Is it absolutely necessary that they have any further degree of grace For 1. the Lords Supper is the means of increasing grace and doth not ever suppose it encreased 2. The Apostles admitted the new baptized into their communion to breaking of bread and prayer presently Act. 3. and 4. Indeed there is requisite in the Receiving and before thoughts suitable to that Ordinance according to its difference from other Ordinances and so there is in each Ordinance according to its nature And in that sense as to some acts it s as true that there is somewhat more required also in Baptism then in receiving the Lord Supper But that 's nothing to the case The Minor is granted me by almost all on supposition that we can have a Classis to exclude the offender And many grant that every Minister may suspend one from the Lords Supper in this case by forbearing his own act I wonder how so palpable a mistake did come to be so common with wise men as that a single Pastor at least when he is the sole Governor of that Church may not exclude on just occasions Doubtless they may without a Classis take in men into the Universal Church for a Classis was not called for every mans Baptism Therefore if one man may be the sole Ruler of a particular Church of which there 's little reason to doubt why may he not do the Office of a Ruler But there 's much to be said for this on a fitter occasion See Gilesp Aarons Rod. l. 3. c. 15. pag. 541. The last Consequence I take for granted on what is said before and the meer nothing that is said against it viz. that if the Parents be in such a state in which they may not be admitted to baptism were it then to do then may not the children be admitted on their right or Interest because they are to come in as Theirs Argu. 17. Those that are Notoriously the children of the Devil may not be baptized nor their Infants on their account But the Notoriously ungodly are Notoriously the children of the Devil Ergo. I prove the Major 1. Baptism is ordained to admit all the baptized to be visible children of God those that are Notoriously the children of the Devil cannot be admitted to be at that time the visible children of God Therefore they may not be Baptized For the proof of the Major see Gal 3.26 27 28 29. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus For as many of you as have been bâ—ptized into Christ have put on Christ And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to promist The Minor is plain For the Minor of the main Argument see 1 John 3.7 8 9 10. Let no man deceive you he that doth righteousness is Righteous He that committeth sin is of the Devil In this the children of God are manifest and the children of the Devil Whosoever doth not Righteousness is not of God This Text proves also the inconsistencie of these two Estates Argu. 18. He that will not be Christs servant may not be baptized nor others on his account But notorious ungodly ones while such will not be Christs servants Ergo. c. The Major is proved in that it is part of Christianity in the Essence of it He is to be believed in and accepted as Lord and King All his Subjects are his servants The Minor is proved from Rom. 6.16 Know ye not that to whom ye yield your selves servants to obey his servants ye are to whom ye obey whether of sin unto death or of obedience unto righteousness Argu. 19. He that will not hear Christ as the Prophet of the Church may not be baptized But notorious ungodly Ones will not hear Christ as the Prophet of the Church Therefore
know that afterward when the Princes and Rulers were evil or negligent then the Church must needs be defiled and the Laws of God unexecuted And perhaps I may mis-interpret some texts of Scripture to a more gentle sense then others do or then is meet Of this let every man judge as he please it s no time now to call all such texts to account If any be offended at my charitable thoughts of the body of the Jews Gods only peculiar people on earth let them blot out these fore going considerations or take them as non dicta for I lay not the stress of my Cause upon them But the Principal thing which I would have observed is this That by Gods Political Law of this Common-wealth all Notorious ungodly persons were to be put to death yea and many far short of that degree I know it is a controversie among Divines what is meant by all those places that speak of Cutting off from his people Mr. Gilespie with others think it is meant of Excommunication Others think it is meant of the Magistrates punishing them with death or Gods doing it extraordinarily if the Magistrate should be negligent The main reason brought against this Exposition is that it seems too bloody But it must be considered how terrible the Law was and how God designed in it the manifestation of his Jealousie Holiness and hatred of sin If every man that did ought presumptuously might be cut off from the Church why not from the Living The Apostle in Acts 3.23 reciting that of Moses saith He that will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from the People However let that phrase mean what it will we have proof enough beside that not only all notorious Ungodly ones but also many Godly ones that fell into gross sin were all to be put to death From whence I argue thus If it was the Law of God that all such persons should be presently put to death then was it not the will of God that their Infants should have Right to Circumcision for their sakes no nor on any other account But the Antecedent is true therefore the Consequent The Reason of the Consequence is this Either thâ—se mens children were born before the parents turned ungodly or after If before then were they circumcised the eighth day as the children of the Godly If after then it was against Gods Law that they should be born much less circumcised For if Gods Law had been fulfilled the parents had been put to death we speak of both parents and then how could they have had a child All the doubt then lying in the Antecedent I shall from Scripture put it is past doubt Let us look over all the Commandments and see whether Death were not to be inflicted for the gross breach of them except the last which is secret in the heart For the first Commandment see Deut. 13. If a Prophet wrought wonders to entice to worship strange Gods or if the nearest kinsman secretly enticed them to it to thrust them out of the way which the Lord commanded them to walk in ver 5. he must be put to death If a City be withdrawn by such they are all to be put to death Children Cattle and Goods were to be destroyed and consumed Deut. 20.18 They were not to save alive any person no not Infants of the Cities that God delivered them to dwell in Lest they teach them to do according to their abominations Exod. 22.20 He that sacrificeth to any God save the Lord only shall utterly be destroyed The breach of the second Commandment is punished with Death Exod. 32.26.27 28. The Priests of Baal are slain 1 Kin. 18.40 2 Kin. 10.21.22 to 29. 23.5 19 20. Yea in one word he that would not be Godly positively was put to death 2 Chron. 15.12 13. It is spoken in their commendations that they entered into a Covenant to seek the Lord God of their Fathers with all their heart and with all their soul that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death whether small or great whether man or woman Lev. 24.15 16. Whosoever blasphemeth the name of the Lord was to be put to death So ver 23. Every one that did any work on the sabbath or defiled it was to be put to death Exod. 31.14 15. 35.2 He that smitteth or curseth his Father or Mother must be put to death Exod 21.15 Murderers Man-stealers Incestuous Sodomites Adulteres Wizards were to be put to death Exod. 21. Lev. 20. yea and those that turn after Wizards Any Prophet that shall presume to speak a word in Gods name which he hath not commanded him to speak or that speaketh in the name of other Gods must die Deut. 13.20 In some cases Fornicators must die Deut. 22. Every man that forsook God and broke his Covenant was to be stoned to death Deut. 17.2 3 4 5 6. Many the like passages might be cited but I will conclude with two or three of chief note for this purpose Deut. 21.18 19 20 21. If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son which will not obey the voyce of his father or the voyce of his mother and that when they have chastened him will not hearken unto them then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him and bring him out unto the Elders of his City and to the Gate of his place and they shall say unto the Elders of his City This our son is stubborn and rebellious he will not obey our voyce he is a Glutton and a Drunkard And all the men of his City shall stone him with stones that he die So shall you put away evil from among you and all Israel shall hear and fear Here I suppose it will be granted that it is the Parents duty to restrain their children from all ungodliness and that Gluttony and Drunkenness are but instanced in as part in stead of all the rest And if all children must be put to death that will not be ruled for good by their Parents then when they are dead they will beget no children who may claim Right to Circumcision for their sakes But if any say that this extendeth not to those that are from under their Parents tutorage or Government I answer First Sure the same sin deserveth the same punishment afterward from the Magistrate if they are obstinate against his pious precepts Secondly but to put the case out of doubt see Deut. 17.12 And the man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God or unto the Judge even that man shall die and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel and all the people shall hear and fear and do no more pâ—esumptuously To these Deut. 29.19 20. From all which it is evident that as Impenitency or Obstinacy in sin is the great cause of Excommunication now so was it then to be punished with Death
seal of the righteousness of that faith which they had or professed to have being yet uncircumcised Gen. 17.11 12. Rom. 4.11 That is the Parent for himself and his child professed a true consent to the Covenant And this Consent I have before proved to be saving faith or inseparable from it And so Covenanting was then as strictly required as Circumcision Object But every male was to be cut off that was not circumcised Answ. I shall not now stand to enquire into the meaning of that cutting off But whatever it was it is certain that there is as much threatned to them that did not covenant with the Lord. Obj. But that cannot import a sincere Covenanting in saving Faith For then how great a part of the people must be cut off Answ. It plainly speaks of the profession of sincerity in Covenanting 2. Chron. 15.12 13. And they entred into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their Fathers with all their heart and with all their soul that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death whether small or great whether man or woman Obj. But saith Mr. Blake though they covenant to believe savingly yet they do not profess that they do so and it is not covenanting that proves men in a state of justification and salvation but keeping the Covenant Answ. He that covenanteth from that time forward to take the Lord for his God sincerely doth by that Covenant at present express that he consenteth to have the Lord for his God upon the Covenant terms but he that professeth such a Consent doth eo nomine profess saving faith which is nothing else but Assent and that consent producing affiance There is no act proper to saving faith if Consent be not 2. As therefore faith which is or is inseparably joyned with as others confess the hearts consent doth justifie a man before he express it in works of actual obedience so it is but the same thing which we say that heart-covenanting or consent doth justifie or prove a man justified before he do any further keep that Covenant by any positive effects of it For it is the performance of the conditions of Gods promise that first prove us justified and God promiseth Christ and Justification with him to all that believe or receive Christ or accept him as offered And this receiving or accepting is the same thing with consent or heart-covenanting So that all that we oblige our selves to for the future in our sincere covenanting with Christ are not any means of our Justification as begun but only of the continuance or not losing of it 3. Yet still we easily grant that or all covenanting without the hearts consent will save none Ob. Is it credible that all Israel must be forced to profess themselves true believers when many were not Answ. God required them first to be such and upon pain of damnation and then to profess themselves such and seal it by his Sacrament He warranteth no man to profess a falshood but that they truly consent and then profess it Though Asa and the other Rulers could search no deeper then an External Profession or Covenant and their practice in seeking God because they did not know the heart And that it was indeed no other then that which then was saving faith which was professed and so required in that Covenant doth appear in the terms of it It was to take God to be their only God and to give up themselves to be his people and the mention of their deliverance from the Egyptian bondage and the nature of Circumcision shew that it was in Deum Misericordem Redemptorem they that professed to believe with such respect to the blood of the Messiah as those darker times required The terms in Deut. 26.16 17 18. do plainly express that faith which then was proper to the saved The Lord thy God hath commanded thee to do these statutes and judgements thou shalt therefore keep and do them with all thy heart and with all thy soul Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walk in his wayes and 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 as he hath promised thee c. Sincerely to take the Lord for our God is the sum of all Religion and the very nature of Sanctification For it is not the bare Name of God but God himself that is here meant And this can be no less in any tolerable sense then to take him by Assent and Consent for our absolute Lord and Soveraign and chief Good or End And that the Jews themselves thus understood the Covenant of Circumcision Ainsworth on Gen 17. sheweth out of their Rabbies in these words Ex lib. Zohar At what time a man is sealed with this blessed seal of this sign thenceforth he seeth the holy blessed God properly and the holy soul is united with him If he be not worthy that he keepeth not this sign what is written By the breath of God they perish Job 4.9 For that this seal of the holy blessed God was not kept but if he be worthy and keep it the Holy Ghost is not separated from him And after v. 12. ex Maimonid By three things did Israel enter into the Covenant by Circumcision and Baptism and Sacrifice c. And so in all ages when an Ethnick is willing to enter into the Covenant and gather himself under the wing of the Majesty of God and take upon him the yoke of the Law he must be circumcised and baptized and bring a Sacrifice c. When a man or woman cometh to joyn a Proselite they make diligent enquiry after such lest they come to get themselves under the Law for some riches that they should receive or for dignity that they should obtain or for fear If he be a man they enquire whether he have not set his affection on some Jewish woman or a woman her affection on some young man of Israel If no such like occasion be found in them they make known unto them the weightiness of the yoke of the Law and the toil that is in the doing of it above that which people of other Lands have to see if they will leave off If they take them upon them and withdraw not and they see them that they come of love then they receive them as it is written When she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her then she left speaking unto her Ruth 1.18 Therefore the Judges received no Proselites all the dayes of David and Solomon Not in David's dayes left they should have come of fear Nor in Solomon's lest they should have come because of the Kingdom and great prosperity which Israel then had For who so cometh from the Heathens for any thing of the vanities of this world he is no righteous Proselite Notwithstanding there were