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
246.2 The Church with whom the Covenant is made and to whom the Promises of the Covenant are made is the Spouse of Christ his Mystical Body the Sons and Daughters of the Lord God Almighty a Royal Priesthood a chosen Generation Kings Priests to God But this is the Invisible Church of elect Believers not the Visible Church of Visible Professors Pag. 248. The Church whose gathering together and whose unity of faith c. the Lord intendeth by giving to them to that end some to be Apostles c. must be the Church to which all the promises of the Covenant and Priviledges do belong But the Lord intendeth the gathering c. only of the Invisible Elected and Redeemed Church not of the Visible Professing or Confessing Church c. Pag. 249.4 The Invisible Church and not the Visible as it is such hath Right to the Sacraments because these who have Right to the Covenant have Right to the Seals of the Covenant But only the Invisible Church hath Right to the Covenant For God faith only of and to the Invisible Church and not of the Visible in his gracious purpose Jer. 32.38 And I will be their God and they shall be my people Jer. 31.33 I will put my Law c. Now the Visible Church as the Visible is not within the Covenant therefore the Visible Church as the Visible Church and being no more than the Visible Church hath not Right to the Seals of the Covenant but in so far as they are within the Covenant and in so far as God is their God and they his pardoned and sanctified People as it is Jer. 31.33 34. 5. It is known here that our Brethren joyn with the Papists For Papists ignorant of the doctrine of the Visible Church labour to prove that c. Just so our Brethren take all the places for the Priviledges Covenant Promises Stiles of Sister Love Dove Spouse c. 6. A Church in Covenant with God and the Spouse of Christ c. is a Church whereof all the members without exception are taught of God c. But so it is that no Visible Church on earth that are visible Professors of any competent number is such a Church c. therefore no Visible Church as such is a people or Church in Covenant with God See Roger's Catechis part 2. Art 6. pag. 176 177. Concl. 3. A visible Profession of the Truth and Doctrine of Godliness is that which essentially constituteth a Visible Church Only our Brethren and we differ much about the Nature of this Profession Our Brethren will have none members of the Visible Church but such as are satisfactory to the consciences of all the Visible Church and give Evidences so clear as the Judgement of discerning men can attain unto that they are truly regenerated See further This much I have cited specially as to the main Cause Further as to the Distinction in question see him after pag. 185.4 § 5. 1. Dist. All Believers in foro Dei before God have Right to the Seals of the Covenant These to whom the Covenant and body of the Charter belongeth to these the Seal belongeth But in foro Ecclesiastico in an orderly Church way the Seals are not to be conferred by the Church upon persons because they believe but because they profess their believing See further Pag. 188. 1. The Seals of the Covenant are principally given to the Invisible Church as the Covenant it self c. and The Invisible Church as such as a number of Believers have only Right before God to both Covenant and Seals 2. It 's true the Orderly and Ecclesiastick way of dispensing the Seals is that they be dispensed only to the Visible Church Pag. 286. These and many other places do strongly prove our point and specially that the Profession of Simon Magus who before God deserved to be cast out of the Church Act. 8. is sufficient to make one a member of a Visible Church Yea but none deserve in foro Ecclesiae in the Churches Court to be cast out but such as either confess scandalous Sins or are contumacious or convicted judicially of the same before witnesses c. The same Author in his Peaceable Plea pag. 181. We preach and invite in the Gospel all the uncircumcised in heart and all the wicked to come and hear and partake of the holy things of the Gospel and receive the promises thereof with faith And when they come to this heavenly banquet without their wedding Garment Math. 22.12 13. 2 Cor. 2.16 Mat. 21.43 44. it followeth not because they profane the holy things of God that Ministers who baptize the Infants of hypocrites and profane persons are accessary to the profaning the holy things of Christ It is one thing whom Ministers should Receive as members of the Sanctuary and Church and another thing who should come in Pag. 183. Object Divine wrath is kindled for the profanation of holy things Answ. That this is the Ministers or Churches profanation of holy things is not proved It is not wrath procured by the Ministers or those who Receive them into the Church but wrath procured by the unworthy In comers So far Rutherford Having said thus much to Mr. Blakes denyal of the distinction of Gods judgement and the Churches in this case I proceed to that which followeth in his book pag. 141. Mr. Blake 3. They may tell him of the necessity that is put upon Ministers to prophane this Divine Ordinance in putting this seal ordinarily and unavoidably to meer blank paper which is a most contumelious abuse of it Ans. They may sooner tell it than prove it to be any prophanation or contumelious abuse Big words may be bad arguments It s the Claimer that is the Prophaner whom you encourage by telling him that he hath a Title but it is not the Minister who was never made a searcher of hearts no not to know the truth of a Dogmatical faith and therefore may justly set the seal to a blank paper when the Receiver is made judge whether it be blank or not or at least is to give us the evidence that we must proceed upon I would you would before this have told us whether one that dissemblingly pretendeth your Dogmatical faith be a blank paper or not or one that as a Parrat is taught to say I believe in God c. when he understandeth not what he saith If not it seemes a Dogmatical faith is not the Title then in your account If yea then doth the Minister prophane the Ordinance in giving it such and hath not Mr. Blake sealed to many such blanks and contumeliously abused the Ordinance Mr. Blake They may tell him that poor souls are thus miserably cheated in bearing them in hand that these great priviledges and consequently all further Church priviledges are theirs when the conveyance is meer fraudulent that casts it upon them Answ. 1. Alas poor souls Alas miserable cheaters But who are they They that bear them in hand that
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
we believe divers persons who are to us of divers degrees of Credibility And if after all this we be deceived in the most the sin is only in the deceiver And as for us 1. We proceeded upon that evidence which Nature it self directeth us to take even a mans words as the sign of his mind 2. And upon that Evidence which the holy Examples of the Apostles of Christ have directed us to take who were not rashly venturous nor prophaners of Gods Ordinances 3. And if we be indeed deceived in the most or in many it s rather a sign that we are in Gods way than out of it for as Charity believeth all things credible so Christ hath told us that the tares and wheat must grow together and that many are called and few chosen and that in the end he will take out of his Kingdom all things that offend and them that work Iniquity therefore such there will be Object 2. But it is now the custom of the Countrey and a matter of credit to be Christians in Name and therefore all will be so and if you ask them whether they Repent or Believe they will say Yea Therefore this is no credible Profession though theirs was in the dayes of the Apostles when it hazarded their lives Answ. 1. The hazard that attendeth a mans words is not necessary to make them simply credible though as to the Degrees it makes them more credible else we must believe no man but he that speaks to the hazard of his life 2. The Prosperity of the Gospel will not warrant us to alter the Rule of Nature and Scripture else the Church must Incurre greater difficulties in prosperity than in Adversity if prosperity forfeit all mens credit and so men should be kept out in prosperity who may be admiâ—ted in adversity when the Church had peace and were edified Act 9 31. the Apostles altered not their practice 3. We have great cause to rejoyce when Christianity is in so good credit as that all profess it and so respectively we may be glad when there are so many Hypocrites that is when persecutors befriend the truth which they persecuted and when the Gospel is in so much honour And though I am not of their mind that think it the first prescribed End of the Institution that Sacraments and Church-state should be the means of Conversion yet I doubt not but God foreknowing that many hypocrites would unjustly Intrude hath so fitted his Ordinances as to be advantagious to their Conversion when they have Intruded He calleth not any to come into his Church without saving Faith and Repentance nor is he consenting to any mans lying Profession nor unworthy approach to Baptism or the Lords Supper but yet they that do come unworthily and unwarrantably do find that there which tendeth to their Conversion and frequently effecteth it and this I think is the true mean between their Doctrine who maintain that the Sacrament is prescribed as a converting Ordinance and the unconverted are called to it and theirs that say simply it is not a converting Ordinance Object 3. This is the way to fill the Church with hypocrites and ungodly ones and that breeds all our stir while they scandadalize their Profession and will not be ruled Answ. 1. It is Gods way and then no Inconvenience will disgrace it 2. We are foretold as is said that many are called and few chosen and the Church will have many unfound Professors to the end of the world 3. When they are in the Church they are under teaching and Discipline to inform them or if they be oâ—stinate in gross evil to reject them 4. God will have a wide difference between the Church in heaven and on earth Object 4. Then we must admit a drunkard or whoremonger that still lyeth in his sin if a bare Verbal Profession will serve the turn Answ. No. You must see that with his Profession of Repentance he do forsake the sin repented of or else he contradicteth and invalidateth his Profession If a man in his drunkenness come to be baptized and profess to hate drunkenness he actually giveth his tongue the Lye If a man swear that he hateth swearing he contradicteth himself and we have no reason to believe him If a Whoremonger keep his Concubine while he professeth to repent he doth one thing and saith another so that this doth not follow Object 5. It was believing with all the heart that Philip required of the Eunuch and such a believing aâ— had the Promise of Salvation as Paul and Silas required of the Jaylor Answ. True and it s such that we require But Philip and Paul took a bare present Profession as the Evidence of that faith which they must accept and so must we Object 6. But then we shall apply the Seal to a Blank Answ. By a Blank if you mean One that you ought not to apply it to and that hath no right in foro Ecclesiae I deny it but if you mean one that is not actually the subject of Gods promise and to whom God is not actually obliged but conditionally as he is to Heathens and one that hath no proper right coram Deo or Deo judice as shall justifie his claim and receiving before God so I grant that we set the seal to a Blank But that 's not our sin but his And here I desire the Objectors carefully to note that it is Gods design in the Gospel so to order things that the actual Application shall first be the act of the sinner himself God by his Ministers indeed will be the first offerer and the Spirit in the Elect shall be the first Exciter But the first actual apprehender must be the sinner and then the Ministers application by the seals is in order to come after mens own application For man is to be the chooser or refuser of his own salvation which Clemens Alexandrinus giveth as a reason why in those times of the Church When some as the custom is have divided the Eucharist they permit every one of the people to take his own part For every mans own conscience is best fitted to the act of choosing or refusing Stromat lib 1. pag. 2. so that we are but to follow them with the seal and therefore the applying or refusing act must be first theirs and theirs as professed is the Director of ours And therefore as it is their sin and not ours if they reject Christ and their faith and not ours by which he is chosen to be theirs so it is their sin and not ours if a misapplication be made of the External Ordinance by them and so we take not an invalid profession we are bound to follow their profession for God never appointed heart searchers to administer his seals Object 7. But wicked men know not their own hearts and therefore are uncapable of making a credible profession Answ. They may know them better them I can The Intellect hath naturally a power of knowing it self
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
this cannot be his sense For the man is not fradulent and besides his following arguing sheweth the contrary But then I confess that arguing amazeth me again He will prove that he is for the necessity of the profession of a justifying faith to Baptism because he is for the necessity of a Dogmatical faith and that faith must be profess Wonderful Doth he make a justifying and a Dogmatical faith all one No he constantly distinguisheth and opposeth them How then doth he prove that he asserteth the necessity of the profession of a justifying faith because he asserteth the necessity of a professed Dogmatical faith Reader I am at a loss I dare not say Mr. Blake is so perhaps he understands himself make thy best on 't for I can make nothing on 't or worse then nothing But if really he will be of this mind that the Reality of a dogmatical faith is necessary and the profession of a justifying faith I shall not only thank him for giving quiet profession to the truth but I will give him some back again and will come my self a beg lower then he and will affirm that we must give them the Sacraments that profess a saving faith though they have not so much as the Reality of a Dogmatical faith Yet Reader if thou think that there is any parcel of the cause which Mr. Blake doth not expresly give up after all his labour adjoin his words p. 124. and rest satisfied so that I conceit no promise of these Ordinances made to such a faith but an actual investiture of every such believer in them I have made the best enquiry I can into Mr. Blake's sense and I cannot find any reasonable footing for a man to fix upon if we once forsake our present hold and say that it is a profession of some other faith short of that which justifyeth which is the title to the Sacraments For as no man can prove out of Scripture then what faith it must be but we shall there be at a loss so whatever he assert we have evidence enough to prove it insufficient A Real Dogmatical faith cannot be the title For then the Baptizer must know the heart The profession of a bare Dogmatical faith or assent cannot be it For then he that hath the faith of Devils persecutors of Christ and such as are supposed to sin against the Holy Ghost should have title Some consent therefore of the will there must be But to what if not to have Christ as he is offered who can tell A consent to be externally Baptized will not serve A consent to Baptism as Baptism comprizeth saving faith A consent to be a named Christian and to live among them may be without any profession of Christianity No man can tell where to fix nor what we must consent to to procure a Title if once we forsake the present ground If any man will give us yet a more exact Description of a faith short of justifying entitling to Baptism and the Lords Supper I shall be willing to examine it For hitherto I cannot see where I should set my foot if I should leave the ground I stand on I now come to examine the Arguments that are brought for the contrary opinion And I shall begin with Mr. Blake's and then proceed to some which others insist upon In his Treâ—t of Sacr. pag. 161. Mr. Blake beginneth some as he calleth them Additional Arguments that a faith short of that which justifieth gives title to Baptism ARGUMENT I. Mr. Blake They that have right in the sight of God to many and great Priviledges of his gift have a right in his sight to the first and leading Priviledges this I think cannot be denied having a right to those that follow they have right to those that lead If any had in the time of the Law right to the Passeover they had right to Circumcision and if any now have right to the Lords Supper they have right to Baptism But those of a faith that is short of that which â—ustifies have right to many and great Priviledges in the sight of God This is clear from the Apostle Rom. 3.1 The Jew outwardly where Circumcision of heart was wanting had every way much benefit and advantage he had therefore right to Circumcision and those with him that are short of a faith that justifies have right in the sight of God to Baptism ANSWER I. The question is not in the conclusion If all be granted it s nothing for Mr. Blake's cause or against mine It is not all one to conclude those that are short of a faith that â—ustifies have right and such a faith gives right or is the qualification condition or evidence of right either A man that is a Burgess of such a Corporation hath right to be Major But his Burgesship gives him not that right but his election A Frenchman hath right to the Crown of France but not because he is a Frenchman The Jew outwardly Rom. 3. had not his right by a faith short of justifying But he had first an actual abode among Ordinances and the offers of Grace and helps to salvation by free providentiall disposal of mercy 2. The claim that he made to Church-priviledges before men must be upon his Professing of saving faith viz. That he took the Lord only for his God and believed in him according to the tenor of the Promise and not upon the having or Professing of a faith of another Species This answer sufficeth as to the present controversie But because Mr. Blake doth seem also to intend these Arguments to the following controversie I shall briefly enervate them as to both that I may not be put to go over them again when I come to that controversie 2. I deny that Baptism is the first and leading Priviledge of Gods gifts It is a great Priviledge to have the Gospel preached to them to have pardon conditionally offered them that is if they will accept of Christ to be converted and made a true believer to be born of Christian Parents c. These and more are Priviledges and before baptism 3. I distinguish at large of the term Right in my Apologie Here let it suffice to say 1. Right is properly so called which in this case must arise from a promise or proper gift 2. Or it is Analogically so called which ariseth 1. indirectly from Gods command to the Parent Priest Pastor c. to do this for all that require it upon a profession of true faith 2. Or from bare permission or providential disposal 4. I distinguish also the Jews case from ours They had some promise of a continuance of Ordinances among them though not for perpetuity yet for a long time which no Church on earth hath now 5. And now I answer to the Minor 1. An Analogical improper right resulting from permission and a command to Ministers to Baptize all that upon such a profession require Baptism this I ever granted to all that profess saving
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
in such a condition as that the first thing you are bound to do with them is to cast them out or suspend them till then When you are bound presently to cast him out you are not at the same time to give him the Sacrament of the Lords Supper nor his Infants on his account the Sacrament of Baptism Indeed if they had Right to Church-membership their Infants might have so too 2 I deny the Minor Other ungodly persons are visible members but notorious ungodly ones are not They are pso jure excommunicate not meerly as mâ—riting iâ— but on the Notoriousness of their incapacity and the pleasure of the Legislator as is afore declared Obj. The Notorious ungodly were Church-members among the Jews therefore they may be sâ— now Answ. 1. Prove the Antecedent 2. The question is not what men mis-judged them but how God esteemed or pronounced them 3. God would not have them to be Church-members while such whom he commanded the Magistrate to put to death But c. Ergo. Obj They were not to be excommunicate or put away from the Passover Answ. 1. He that is stoned to death is excommunicate and put away from the Passover He that is cut off from the living is put out of the Church on earth 2. I will not waste time to prove Jewish excommunication till I know of some tolerable answer given to that which Mr Gilespie beside many others hath written so largely already Argum. 3. Infants in Covenant have right to Baptism The Infants of Notorious Ungodly Parents are in Covenant Ergo. Ans. I have in my account to Mr. Blake told you so fully how far they are in Covenant and how far not that I must refer you thither and not here recite it I deny that God is actually engaged to them in the covenant of Grace which Baptism sealeth but conditionally only and so he is to Infidels that persecute it Though they may be engaged more to God by their own Verbal covenant to him but that altereth not the case Argu. 4. Dogmatical faith giveth Right to Baptism Notoous ungodly Parents have a Dogmatical faith Ergo. c. Answ. I have said so much to Mr. Blake on this that I need not now to add any more Obje Simon Magus had a faith which gave him right to baptism But Simon Magus was then a Notorious ungodly man therefore a Notorious ungodly man may have a faith that may entitle him and his to baptism Ans. See what is said to this in the place before cited Further 1. I yield that Simon had a faith of superficial Assent such as the Devils have in a greater measure and that he professed more than he had and that hereupon the Apostle was warranted to baptize him 2. But I deny the Minor that he was then notoriously ungodly Consider well of Psalm 50.16 Argu. 5. Josiah was lawfully Circumcised upon the Right of Manasseh and Ammon but Manasseh and Ammon were Notoriously ungodly Ergo. Ans Either Josiah was born before his Father Ammon proved Notoriously ungodly or after If before then he received not his right from a Notoriously ungodly Parent If after 1. Then was it contrary to Gods Laws and so could be no true Right For by Gods Laws Manasseh and Ammon should have been put to death And if it be said that these Laws were not to be executed on the Soveraign I answer the want of a power of execution doth not hinder but that they notoriously lost their Right though they kept possession and therefore could convey no Right It follows therefore that either Josiah was circumcised without Right if it be first proved that his father was such at the time of his birth or else that he had his right some other way intimated in the General answer to the Jews case And to them that think the former a hard saying I shall anon shew that the rule holds good in this case that Quod fieri non debet factum valet Argu. 6. Deut. 24 16. The Children shall not be put to death for the Fathers sin and we read not that Ecclesiastical censure should be more severe The child of a Thief is not committed with him to prison and I see no reason that he is committed with him to Sathan therefore there is right to Baptism in the child of an excommunicate person Answ. The question is not of excommunicating a child or committing him to Satan but of addmitting him into the Church at first The Parent cannot convey to the child the Right whith he hath lost we speak only of the Children born after the Parents are excommunicated vel sententiâ vel ipso Jure But of this enough I think before the state of the question is by these Arguers strangely over-lookt Argu. 7. Those that the Apostles Baptized had been ungodly immediately before only at the present they did profess Repentance And so do many of these that you call Notoriously ungodly Ergo. Answ. 1. If it be a probably serious and credible profession fit for that name then are they not Notoriously ungodly 2. According both to Scripture and Reason and common use a mans first or second profession may be credited But if he frequently break his word his credit is lost he is not capable at present of covenanting again till he have by actual Reformation recovered his credit I have such Neighbours as this twenty years together have been constant drunkards and lament it and promise Reformation when they have done and yet once a week or fortnight usually are still drunk To take these mens oft breaking words were to delude Scripture and all Discipline and cross common Reason Yet here we must carefully distinguish between Repentance for such gross sins as continued in are inconsistent with true Grace and Repentance for such infirmities as may stand with Grace not only to live in but not to have or manifest a particular Repentance of As those which are not convinced to be sins c. We speak now of the first Argum. 8. By denying them Baptism we may exasperate the wicked to engage themselves against Christ and us Answ. The Primitive Church under Heathen Princes had much more cause to fear this than we have and yet it did not change their course I take not such carnal Reasons to be worthy to have place among the servants of such a Master who fears not his enemies and will make them bend and return to him but will not himself bend and return to them The truth is had we Magistrates that would so severely punish notorious ungodliness as I think they should do according to Gods Laws that most of this Controversie would be ended and instead of driving men from Gods Ordinances they should be driven from such ungodliness But when Magistrates are so tender of hurting mens Bodies that they let their souls perish or are so much against formality and outside Reformation that they had rather men were Heathens and openly wicked and sinned with Body
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
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
may receive without recourse to the Law of God in Specie Without Scripture it may be known that a Precept is not the same thing with a Promise or Deed of Gift and that a Power of Administring to one that demandeth is different from a Power to demand it or any just Title that may warrant a claim 4. If this will not serve you I add Lex distinguit ergò distinguendum est 1. You confess that a Dogmatical Faith is necessary to our Title And what is that equally Coram Deo Exclesiâ If a Jew say I will go and deride Mr. Blake I will tell him to day that I believe in Christ and I will be Baptized by him and tomorrow I will scorn Christ to his face will you say that this man hath equall Right Deo judice as he hath Ecclesia judice I will not be too confident of my understanding your minde but upon consideration I think you will not 2. Matth. 22. and Luke 14. The servants had power to bring in by perswasion that person that had not on the wedding garment though they were to perswade him to come as a meet guest and so with that garment yet the performance they left to himself But yet he had no warrant for his access in that condition and he meets there with a judgement of God which was distinct from that of the Church which with a Friend how camest thou in hither c. left him speechless Nor would it have saved him to have said Lord I was taught by learned Divines that there is no Forum Dei to judge of my Right to Sacraments besides the Forum Ecclesiae and I had Right in the judgement of the Church and therefore so I have in thine And thousands will finde this Plea prove uneffectual if they shall be encouraged to use and trust to it 3. 1. Cor. 11.31 32. I think there is a judgement of the Lord mentioned against unworthy receivers that is not the same with the judgement of the Church Nor is it my opinion that it was the Churches judgement which laid some of them in sickness some in weakness and some asleep God took cognisance of mens not examining themselves and eating and drinking unworthily which was an eating and drinking damnation to themselves and of their not discerning the Lords Body and that further then the Church did 4. It hath till now been taken for granted that there is a twofold forum or judgement exprest in Mat. 16.19 and Mat. 18.18 Where binding on earth and binding in heaven are distinguished and loosing on earth and loosing in heaven The Treatisers that have wrote of the power of the Keyes and the Expositors upon this Text have not thought that these two were but one nor did offer so injuriously that I say not reproachfully to expound Christs words If you say that though they be not the same yet they agree for that shall be bound or loosed in heaven which is bound or loosed on earth I answer that is quando clavis non errat When the Church judgeth justly as the truth is For God will not judge erroneously or unjustly because man doth so Yea though the Churches error be inculpable as if they absolve or excommunicate a man upon the full testimony of false witness c. yet God will not therefore judge as they Though he will justifie their act of judging yet he will not censure the true Title of the person to communion accordingly nor binde or loose in heaven according to any mistaking sentence Many other Texts do sufficiently evidence this distinction But because Mr. Blake doth pag. 187. and often so peremptorily renounce this distinction in this controversie I shall yet add one or two Reasons to shew the necessity of it Arg. 1. If the judgment of God the judgment of the Church concerning mens Right and claim here be all one then either the Churches judgement is infallible in this matter or Gods judgement is fallible But neither is the Churches judgement infallible nor Gods judgement fallible Therefore they are not both one The force of the consequence is evident And for the Minor 1. To say Gods judgement is fallible even that which he doth himself immediately exercise of which we speak is to Blaspheme 2. To say that mans judgement here is infallible is to speak 1. That which cannot be proved 2. More than the Papists yea more than the Italian Papists say of the Popes For Bellarmine himself will confess him fallible about such personal causes as these whether such a mans cause be good or bad c. 3. If the judgement of man be in this case infallible then no man was ever wrongfully admitted by the Church and so the argument would hold à facto ad jus such a one was admitted therefore he had Right to claim and Receive But the consequent is intolerable For 1. It hindereth all hypocrites in the world that should believe it from repenting of their unjust claim and Receiving and justifieth them all Coram Deo but sure it will prove an uneffectual justification 2. The same it doth by all Ministers that ever administred the Sacraments It teacheth them to justifie themselves as infallible and to disclaim Repentance for any mistake He that dare tell all the Ministers in the world that they never gave a man a Sacrament without Right Coram Deo or all the Receivers in the world that they never received it without such Right as will warrant their claim and Receiving will shew whether the weakness even of good mens arguings may seduce Moreover if the Minister be infallible in this case then either by an ordinary ability of discerning or by extraordinary priviledge The latter is not pretended by any Protestants or Papists that I know of The former cannot be said unless it be also said 1. That all other men as wise be Infallible as well as they 2. And that therefore the case hath such evidence that no Minister can possibly be mistaken in it But this cannot reasonably be said For 1. If an Infidel or Pagan come in scorn to be Baptized and profess a Dogmatical faith when he hath it not the Minister cannot know his heart 2. And if Mr. Blake will say that the very scornful words of such a Professing Pagan are a sufficient title coram Deo yet the Minister may possibly mistake his words and think he saith I do believe when he saith I do not believe 3. Or the Minister may easily mistake the extent and nature of Mr. Blakes Dogmatical faith and think that the Infidel doth profess that Dogmatical faith when it is but some faith yet lower than it or but part of it Furthermore if Ministers be thus infallible then none of their Acts can be Nullities but the contrary is true and hath been the Judgement of the Church expressed in many Councils de rebaptizandis non legitime baptizatis quoad essentiam baptismi And this would put us hard to the
to be inconsistent if reduced into practice with the Purity of the Church and such as is unworthy the patronage of Godly learned men Yet in this I perceive his writings have success For I hear that some Reverend Godly men of his acquaintance are so confident that he is in the right that they marvel that ever I should hold the contrary and blame me as defending a principal point in the Independent cause The Lord enlighten us and pardon it to us which soever of us it be that is mistaken and doth wrong the Church of God There are four several Titles that are or may be produced to Baptism The first is sincere Saving Faith The second is the profession of such sincere Faith The third is a Dogmatical Faith short of Justifying Faith The fourth is a profession of that Dogmatical Faith I say that only they that have the Justifying Faith have a Promise-Right to Baptism properly so called which I called a Right Coram Deo but that the professors of such a Faith and their seed have an Analogical Consequential Right which followeth on Gods Precept to a Minister to Baptize them This I called Right Coram Ecclesiâ and is less properly a Right And that the bare word Right might be no occasion of quarrel I distinguished of Right and shewed how far I affirmed or denyed it But such distinctions and conclusions are nothing to the business with Mr. Blake but fittest to be passed by I conclude in a word that every professor of a Justifying Faith that doth not invalidate his own profession hath such a claim to Baptism for himself if unbaptized and his seed as the Church must admit But only the sincere Believer hath a Right from the Promise and shall be taken by God for one to whom he is actually as it were obliged by his Covenant But for the two later pretended Titles viz. A Dogmatical Faith not Justifying and the Profession of such a Faith I say they are no just Titles at all Not but that a man who hath meerly a Dogmatical Faith within may have a Title in Foro Ecclesiae but this Faith is not his Title but the profession of a Saving Faith so that if he profess only his Dogmatical Faith and not a Saving Faith the Minister ought not to Baptize him This is the brief of the state of the Controversie between Master Blake and me And did I think that any such Reverend Brethren would ever have approved his Judgement in such a cause Yea and some of them plead from the same effectual mediums which are alone sufficient to prove the contrary It s the course of Hilary and others against the Arrians Hierome Augustine and many more against the Pelagians and other hereticks to call them to the constant practice of the Church in Baptizing for the proving of the nature of that Belief that we are Baptized into and the quality of the subject I appeal to Christs institution of Baptism and the uninterrupted practice of all Churches that ever I read of on the face of the earth to this day and to the continued practice of the Churches in England and all the Reformed parties and all the rest of the Christian world If they do not generally Ethiopians Greeks Papists Protestants with one consent require the profession of a Justifying Faith I will quit this cause and tell Mr. Blake that I have been mistaken and cry him mercy Nay if Mr. Blake himself do not require the profession of a Justifying Faith in the Parent of all that he admits to Baptism I shall think him the only singular man I know alive in this business But if he practice contrary to all his confident Argumentations which shall we have respect to his opinion or his practice Where is the Church on earth that doth not Baptize into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and require in the adult or the Parent of Infants that they profess themselves at present to Believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost and to renounce the World the Flesh and the Devil And therefore they commonly cause them to profess the Articles of the ancient Creed before they do Baptize them which though it hath been lately disused by some I gladly heard some Reverend Ministers in London yet use which Creed as Parker de Descensu hath learnedly shewed is the exposition of the words of the Baptismal Institution and the sum of it is I Believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost I think not only Perkins but our Divines commonly against the Papists have proved sufficiently that the words I Believe in God the Father in Jesus Christ in the Holy Ghost do signifie Affiance as well as Assent And I should hope that I need not be put to maintain it that to Believe with Assent and Affiance in God the Father Christ the Redeemer the Holy Ghost the witness and Sanctifier renouncing the Devil the World and the Flesh is certainly Justifying Faith at least If they that say they thus Believe do so indeed I dare not be he that shall tell them they are yet condemned and deny them to be the justifyed members of Christ. If they will not so much as profess thus to Believe yea and to Repent I will never Baptize them or theirs upon theâ—r account Will Mr. Blake himself Baptize them that will not thus profess would ever the Church of Christ Baptize any but such and yet some Reverend Brethren tell us that the Church universally hath gone Mr. Blakes way against that which I insist on Now the Lord have mercy upon all our infirmities and pity his poor Church and bring his servants to so much Unity that the universal practice of the Church in all ages and Nations even among our selves which we daily hear and see and our own selves practise may not be among us a matter of controversie for then what are we likely to be agreed in Again I must crave pardon of this confidence but if it seem to them to come from self-conceitedness and pride of my own judgement or a loathness to let go what I have once received as I willingly confess that I find such sins within me and am no Christian if I blame them not and hate them not in my self so I will be bold to tell Mr. Blake and the world the very truth in this business which is that the partiality that I have felt in the study of this point hath been for Mr. Blakes opinion against my own and I had rather a great while till the light convinced me have found his opinion true than my own As I knew I should be taken for a defender of the Independants which is a censure that I little regard so I thought that I should the better comply with some Texts of the old Testament which Mr. Blake much urgeth and some other reasons did cause Mr. Blakes opinion sometime so far to smile upon me that I strove against the contrary truth and studied
the Lord whom we most offend in the abundance of his Grace doth forgive us both I must confess that when I think I have a call to dispute I do withall think that I am called to lay open the nakedness of the cause which I oppose to the utmost and being perswaded that I speak against that which is against God me thinks if I do not effectually manifest its falshood I do nothing whereupon I finde that what is spoken against the cause is taken as a dishonour to the person and he takes himself to be wounded or wronged by it when I never touch the person at all so that if I do but once name the Imposture of a common distinction Mr. Blake comes on as if I had called all those learned men cheators or impostors that use that distinction between fides qua quâ yea even those that condescended privately to write to me and so parrallels me with Mr. Craudon herein Mr. Craudon spoke of persons and I speak of distinctions and reasons Is not this a meer violence as if it were to raise an odium and set men together by the ears When I mention the weakness of his own arguing he tells me I must not answer a fool according to his folly and marvails I will set my wit against such a ones Is not such dealing a sufficient prohibition to dispute If I shew not the weakness of an Argument I do nothing If I do I make the Author a fool If I shew that an Argument is unsound or a conclusion false I make him false If I shew that some common distinction hath unobservedly deceived many I make all the Learned that use it impostors even my friends that privately vouchsafe me their writings Well I am satisfied and take the prohibition This book of Mr. Blakes I proclaim unanswerable These are too hard and unjust terms for me to dispute upon Especially when the main issue of a large volume must be but to reckon up a Dear and Reverend Brothers mistakes Yet I must confess that the controversies about the object of Justifying Faith whether Christ as Lord and the object of Baptism do seem to me of so great weight and use to the Church to be well discust that I will not peremptorily resolve against medling so far with his book if any more judicious do convince me it is my duty But I have run much beyond my first intention I thought but to give you some reasons why I should not write any Rejoynder to these learned Reverend men Dr. Owen Mr. Robertson or Mr. Blake and giving you my Reasons I find I have done some of that which those Reasons were brought against and from which I intended to excuse myself But having run so far with the other I shall say the less of Mr. Robertson his dealing with me is like others that have gone before him and do accompany him and I am now so used to it that I the less marvail at it Of this zealous Brutus I must needs say Nescio quid juvenis iste vult sed quicquid vult vehementer vult It s enough to make us admire Gods patience and mercy that will forbear and pardon such things to the Sons of men and it s a sad discovery of the lamentable case of the Church on earth that Grace should have so much corruption with it and that the Church must make use of such sinful guides as we are in the way to glory For though the Scripture saith that a false witness shall not be unpunished and he that telleth Lyes shall not escape and that Railors shall not enter into the kingdom of God yet I hope they may have Grace that do it in a mistaken zeal for God though Self may have too much hand in it But we may see in our miscarriages that it is not for nothing that God hath let loose such Judgements upon Professors and such floods of reproach upon us our selves that serve at his Altar as lately he hath done I dare say that many a Heathen would have scorned to have given out against his greatest Enemy such volumes of notorious impudent falshoods and imprudent railings as Mr. Robertson and other of his spirit have lately done against one that was none of their enemy Might I but have truth from them I care not for my own part for the worst of their words But who knows how to confute such volumes whose very substance is compounded of gross falshoods and calumnies Either the Reader of Mr. Robertsons Book and his associates will also read mine or they will not If they will not let them take their course and believe what they list and not what is true for how can I help it if I write again what likelyhood that they will read it that will not read that which is written already If they lose by it no more then I what cause have I to care But if they will but read the book which Mr. Robertson opens his mouth against I desire no more if that will not satisfie them and make them lament over the spirit of this man I have no more to say to them they are none of the men for whom I write But Mr. Robertson hath little cause to say that I am for Justification by Works when I hope that such men as he are justified whose works are such as I once hoped no man had been so guilty of that had the least fear of God before his eyes I profess I marvail what 's the matter that the wasps of the Nation are gathered about my ears I cannot but hope yet that there are few more such in England as those that I have had to deal with His first assault of me is about the Inception of Gods immanent acts But never had I such a confuter before no not Mr. Craudon himself He bestows a whole Epistle on part of his book to tell the Reader how he detests my Blasphemy and that 's my confutation Not a line of my Book doth he cite and confute But in general tells me that I affirm new Immanent acts in God and then cryes out upon the blasphemy Must we write confutations of such men as these No they that will believe them let them take that they get by it it s nothing to me that cannot remedy it What if twenty men will swear that I have written there is no God must I write against them all I laid down my mind in the case that I am thus dealt with about in several propositions as plain as I could speak the sum of the chief part of them was this that the substance of the Act as commonly called that is the Essence of God is neither multiplyed nor beginneth nor endeth but the Relations and extrinsick denominations are many and may begin and end Yet would I not presume to determine with Pet. Hertado de Mendoza and others that the Relations are ex parte Dei but only took what the Thomists grant that
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
arguing why may not you say that the child of every Turk and Indian on earth hath Right for their Parents did no more divest them of it than these and their sins can no more be transmitted But though it be not necessary to be asserted to the upholding of the present Cause yet I must tell you that I believe that Parents transmit more of their sin than of their Graces to Posterity and I am somewhat confident that you say what you can never prove and deny a Guilt which it better beseemed you to acknowledge and lament Next to the proof of the Minor of the main Argument viz. that notoriously ungodly persons are excommunicated from the society of Christians as such ipso Jure or are to be pronounced no members of the Universal Church To be excommunicate ipso Jure is when the Law is so express and so fully applyeth it self to the case of the offending person that there may or must be an execution of it by the people though there do no sentence of the Judge intervene when the plainness of the Law and the notoriousness of the Case may warrant an execution without Judgement And that it is so here I prove thus The Case is supposed Notorious and the Law is plain and commandeth all men to execute it whether there be any Judgement or not Therefore such are ipso Jure excommunicate 1. In a lower sort of Excommunication the meer Law may require our execution without a sentence therefore much more in a grosser and plainer case We must not eat with the scandalous 1. Cor. 5.11 We must avoid them that cause Division Rom. 16.17 We must note such men as are disobedient and have no company with them that they may be ashamed yea we are flatly commanded in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that we withdraw our selves from every brother that walketh disorderly 2 Thes. 3.6 14. All this we must do though no Ecclesiastical Judge do sentence them when the case is notorious We must reject a known Heretick after the first and second admonition we must turn away from wicked Livers though they have a form of Godliness 2 Tim. 3 5. 2. Concerning those that are not Christians we are bid come out from among them and separate our selves and touch no unclean thing 2 Cor. 6.17 18 For what communion hath Light with darkness and Christ with Belial or a Believer with an Infidel ver 14. we have the estates of Infidels Apostates and ungodly men described to us and we must judge them to be as they undoubtedly appear to be and use them accordingly John bids a woman that If any come to them and bring not this doctrine receive him not into your house neither bid him God speed for he that bideth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds Here is an Excommunication ipso Jure for he doth not name the persons but leave them to discern them and execute according to evidence And these seem to be persons much in the case as now we have to do with such as professed themselves Christians in name and yet denied the fundamentals and lived wickedly v. 7.8 9. of Ep. 2. Mary deceivers are entered into the World who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh This is a very Deceiver and Antichrist whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God whether this was written to a Lady or a Church whether of the Gnosticks or other Sect it differs not much as to our case Also God calls all his people whom it did concern to come out of Babylon that they pertake not of her sins receive not of her plagues Rev. 18.4 But I need not prove I hope that we are not of the same body with known unbelievers and that unbelieving expresseth as small if not a smaller evil than ungodliness and is comprehended in it I have already manifested And it s known that we are to shun the company of a wicked man that will take on him the name of a Christian Brother more then of an unbeliever that pretendeth not to be one of us For with the later we may eat 1 Cor. 10 27. though we may not communicate with him in his false worship ver 16.17 18 20 21. but with the former we may not And whether the ungodly be any more of our Body or fit for our communion than Infidels that so profess themselves in words let Scripture judge When God separateth his own People from others it is not only as from unbelevers but he most freqently giveth the reason from their Pollutions so that it is from them as from the unclean Lev. 20 24. I am the Lord your God which have separated you from other People Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean c. which I have separated from you as unclean And ye shall be holy unto me for I the Lord am holy and have severed you from other People that ye should be mine So answerable hereunto all Gods People under the Gospel are called Saints as well as Believers and Paul tels all the Corinthians not only that they are changed from Infidelity to Faith but such were some of you that is wicked Livers but ye are washed ye are sanctified ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God 1 Cor. 6 11. And he is blinde that seeth not how in all the ceremonial Institutions of Moses which were Types of Christs cleansing his Church the Lord doth most eminently declare his Purity and hatred of sin and the necessity of Holiness and Purity in his People as well as the necessity of pardon by Christ Answerable whereunto in the Gospel Christ is as eminently declared the sanctifier as the Pardoner of men He saveth his people from their sins themselves and washeth and sanctifieth and cleanseth his Church that he may present it spotless to God Lev. 15.31 12.2 3 5 c. Neh. 13.3 9.2 10.28 Ezr. 6.21 Exod. 33.16 Lev. 5.2 11. throughout 13. 14. Num. 19. Isa. 52.1 the Gospel-Church is accordingly described Put on thy beautiful Garments O Jerusalem the holy City for henceforth then shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and unclean Ezek. 22.26 Her Priests have violated my Law and profaned my holy things they have put no difference between the Holy and Profane neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean Ezek. 44.23 Jer. 15.19 If thou wilt take forth the pretious from the vile thou shalt be as my mouth let them return to thee but return not thou to them Eph. 5.5 2 Cor. 12.21 Ezek. 36.29 I think it is clear that those whom Paul describeth 2 Tim. 3. are to be avoided by all Christians as not in the Christian body and he describeth them by their unholiness and particular vices and saith of their Teachers that they are Men of corrupt minds reprobate concerning the faith