whatsoever For I am of opinion there is no need of excommunicating or suspending a man after he is dead nor of judging of him in order thereunto §. 4. 4. Mr. W. tells us Papists are Christians But we need not suspend them from the Lords Supper their phansie of transubstantiation and other heretical Mormoes save us the labour I know not why Papists may not without destroying their principles tender themselves to receive with us unless the necessity of their obedience to the Popes prohibition hinder them and yet that is not a principle to the French Papists But if a Papist remaining such and owning transubstantiation Popish Indulgencies merit in the Jesuits sense prayers to Saints religious adoration or worshipping of Images c. tender himselfe to receive will Mr. W. admit him why them doth he not plainly say he would as indeed his doctrine leads him to admit him if the Papist be not excommunicated in such sense as I thinke none in England are But those words of his save us the labour I suppose intimate that if they did not withdraw themselves from our Communion but should tender themselves to receive we should be at the labour of suspending them And yet Papists are not forbidden to come to Church nor separated from all other Ordinances in the Church And then the universal negative Mr. W. pretends to defend that no baptized person adult intelligent not excommunicated may be debarred the Lords Supper if he tender himselfe is againe battered by another Instance which his own pen hath afforded May not a Papist be baptized adult intelligent and not excommunicated the publique Congregations if he exclude not himselfe as some others doe And yet I thinke Mr. W. grants he may be kept back from the Lords Supper whiles he professedly remaines a Papist and it s to my admiration that this Gentleman can so confidently defend the said universal negative before mentioned and yet overthrow it by divers such concessions as this in his booke §. 5. 5. Mr. W. tells me I delude men with the contracted notion of saving faith and I may tell him 1. that he doth as much delude men with the contracted notion of doctrinal or dogmatical faith 2. And that it s not the notion of saving faith but the resting in a common verbal profession of Christianity crying Lord Lord which will be found to be the great deluder of men when the day of trying all things shall come And then he informes us that Sacraments are not seales of a personal and inward faith only They are visible scales of the righteousnes of faith i. e. of the doctrine of faith in Christ unto justification in the sight of God without the workes of the Law From whence he inferres And why should not all baptized persons adult and not excommunicated personally testifie their assent to this doctrine by taking the consecrated bread and wine into their hands as the visible similitudes of the body of Christ sacrificed for us c. To which I reply Who hath said that they are seales of a personal faith only But doth not Mr. W. here grant as well he may that they are seales of a personal inward faith though not only Sacraments are considered 1. in respect of the Institutor and Author 2. of the Receiver both wayes they are seales In respect of the Author they seale his tender of the Covenant of grace wherein salvation is freely promised to all that beleeve In respect of the Receivers they are instituted and appointed by God for their solemn sealing or testifying their beleeving and obediential embracing of the Covenant of grace in the blood of Christ And as the Administrator is to attend both so in subserviency to his Master both these are to be designed by him in the celebration of the holy mysteries The seales as is often said are commensurate with the Covenant sealed If a single covenant or meere promise tendered to all who will beleeve that they shall be saved might be sealed with the Sacraments there were nothing in the nature of the Sacraments which should hinder the administring of them to heathens remaining such to whom this Gospel is to be preached Mark 16.15 John 3.16 But it s manifest these seales can be administred only where there is visibly a mutual covenant viz. God promising justification on the condition of faith to the Communicant and the Communicant visibly closing with that condition of beleeving to justification This is manifest in that famous text Mr. W. relates to which is Rom. 4.11 concerning Abraham his receiving Circumcision as a seale of the righteousness of faith §. 6. This text requires our most serious perusall And here I shall observe That though Gods sealing or confirming his promise or single covenant of grace is not excluded yet this text doth very eminently refer to the sealing or confirming of Abrahams personal faith and that not only a dogmatical but justifying and saving faith professed by him in receiving Circumcision The Question Paul disputes in the context is whether a man may be justified without the works of the Mosaical Law as such and he proves our affirmative in the example of Abraham Abraham was a righteous person and justified by faith his faith was imputed to him for righteousness that is God dealt with him and accepted of him through Christ as if he had been perfectly righteous in himselfe having pardoned his sins as the phrase is explicated v. 6 7 8. That this is the cleere and easie importance of the phrase of imputing a thing to another I thinke I first learned from our learned Wotton on John 1.12 a notion much better than fine gold which is demonstrated by two places of this Epistle where the same manner of speech is used Rom. 2.26 If the uncircumcision keep the Law shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he shall fare no worse than if circumcised so Rom. 9 8. Now that Abraham was thus justified without those Mosaicall works the Apostle proves 1. In that he was justified before the workes of the Law as such were in force For he was justified before he received Circumcision one use whereof afterwards was to engage the receivers thereof to all the Mosaical Law Gal. 5.3 2. In that Circumcision in its designe and intendment and to Abraham effectually was to be a seale of the righteousness of faith before received and hence as well as from other texts Divines so unanimously conclude that the Sacraments are not instituted for the unconverted but converted I say instituted For its vaine to speake of the possibility of conversion in the event by or at the Sacrament as thence to inferre the manifestly prophane and unconverted may be admitted For no one can say of an heathen or excommunicated person if he be sinfully present and partake that he shall not may not be converted at or by that sinfull partaking The spirit bloweth where it listeth The concurrent judgement
of Divines English and Forreine Episcopal and Presbyterian herein that man of vast and digested reading the learned Baxter hath demonstrated at large in sixty Testimonies produced in the second of his five disputations concerning Right to the Sacraments Sundry of which Testimonies have many in them being the judgement of many Churches and many learned men therein And many more might be easily brought forth I shall take leave to mention only two or three in reference to this text in special not cited by him Oecumenius in locum Maximo Florentino Interp. saith Nullam aliam ob rem circumcisus suit Abraham quam ut pro signo ac demonstratione ipsam circumserret circumcisionem justitiae illius quae in praeputio substitit ipsi Abrahae Si verò signorum ac sigilli loeo accepit circumcisionem nihil ipsi ad justitiam prosuit sed hâc solumodo ratione justificatum esse significavit hoc est quod cum in praeputio esset adhuc justitiâ dignus habitus fuit Arctins in loc saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 autem circumcisio proprie fuit respectu electorum nam in his geminum usum retinuit scilicet obsignare justitiam eis collatam Pareus quotes Lyra expounding it thus Accepit signaculum justitiae fidei hoc est ut esset signaculum justitiae fidei latentis in mente When the Rhemists on this place had said the heretiques that is the Protestants in their language would hereby shew that the Sacraments of the Church give no grace or justice of faith but that they be notes markes and badges only of our remission of sins had by faith before because Abraham was just before and took this Sacrament for a seale thereof only c. These Rhemists are thus answered herein by our learned Cartwright St Paul saith he doth not only call Circumcision a signe but a seale whereby it is evident that God so wrought by this signe that thereby he came to a further assurance of his righteousnesse which he had before the setting to of the seale And whereas they the Papists would have this righteousnesse which was before the seale thereof to be peculiar unto Abraham and that in others the righteousnesse is not before the seale but with it It is directly contrary to the whole discourse of the Apostle 2 Then It is absurd that thus the seale is supposed to be put before the justice whereof it is the seale And thus the Lord which for mens better understanding borroweth his Sacraments from the common usage of their compacts and Covenants as neere as may be is brought first to seale and then to write that which he sealeth cleane contrary to that usage of men from whence he draweth the resemblance of his Sacraments c. Behold here the old Protestant Doctrine aslerted in opposition to the Papists viz. that a personal faith or justice is according to this text sealed or confirmed and supposed to be existent in one before he comes to partake of the Sacrament Which designes the sealing of his righteousnesse upon his beleeving supposed And that the contrary opinion is absurd Now alas what impudent times are we fallen into when men have the confidence to tell us against our owne eyes that It is a novelisme and heterodox upstart doctrine now among us that Sacraments are instituted and designed only for the converted and for the confirming not working of faith when as I thinke it will be hard for them to produce so much as a Protestant Catechisme which asserts not the same This booke of Cartwrights I have quoted so largely was written as the Title and Preface shew by order of the chiefe Instruments of Queene Elizabeth and the State at the special Request of many most famous and eminent Divines Goad Whitaker Fulk and sundry others Furthermore that this text doth point to Abrahams faith as that which was sealed by the Sacrament and not only Gods promise may be shewed from severall hints thereof in the text and context As 1. It was the seale of the righteousnesse he had before Circumcision which at least according to our translation denotes an inherent qualification in him which he received a seale of by submitting to that ordinance of God appointed for the testifying of his faith and obedience 2. That faith was sealed in respect whereof he is the Father of them who beleeve now that was a faith inherent in him and not only the doctrine of faith revealed to him and others also in common And they are Abrahams children in the sense of the text who walk in the steps of our Father Abraham v. 12. And Christ tells many of the Jewes flatly who yet had the same doctrine of faith revealed to them as Abraham had If ye were Abrahams children ye would do the works of Abraham John 8.39 Although he acknowledgeth them Abrahams seed too after the flesh v. 37. Let me lastly Insert D Hammonds Paraphrafe on the text Rom. 4.11 And Abraham being justified after this Evangelical manner upon his saith without and before Circumcision he received the Sacrament of Circumcision for a seale on his part of his performing those commands of God given him his walking before him sincerely Gen. 17.1 upon which the Covenant is made to him and thus sealed v. 2 4 10. and on Gods part c. I conclude therefore according to this text the Sacraments are seales of the mutual covenant which only indeed is a covenant properly and strictly viz. not only of Gods tender of grace to us through Christ upon the condition of faith but also seales whereby according to Gods institution we are to ratifie our accepting of those Gospel termes for justification in Christs blood and in so doing receive a further confirmation of Gods love towards us in such degree as we are capable of the sense of it And though God requires all them to whom the Gospel is revealed to seale their acceptance thereof yet God requires no man to seale he doth what he doth not nor hath he any proper visible right to the Sacraments who visibly rejects these Gospel termes §. 7. 6. Mr. W. tells us God makes men beleevers by Baptisme p. 66. If he meane they are solemnly to signifie the same herein I grant it But if that they are not Christians before I deny it upon evident Reason 1. For they are baptized because Christians not forfeiting the priviledges of such therefore they are Christians before I shall here only refer to Peter Martyr the Author Mr. W. so often mentions with honour in his booke as well he may loc com cl 4 cap. 8. § 3. et 7. c. Where he gives an account of the baptizing Infants of Christian parents upon the Churches hope of their election as being the seed of the holy Neque parvulos baptizaremus nisi jam eos ad ecclesiam et ad Christum arbitraremur pertinere And he saith Those are not to be heeded who move a scruple in this matter and say What if
any other communion So he And in the same chapter speaking of suspension he saith The lesser excommunication excludeth onely from the Sacramentall pledges and assurances of Gods love which when it is pronounced against them that stubbornly stand out and will not yeeld themselves to the Churches direction and disposition is properly named Excommunication I have the rather insisted on this because of two consequences which wil naturally and easily flow from this doctrine viz. 1. That the scruple hinted by Mr. W. p. 133. and insisted on by others in opposition to our abstension or suspension is manifestly frivolous and groundless They say if a parent turn not his children out of doores he will not deny them bread and apply their simile that in like manner those who are not excommunicated or not cast out of the Church should not be denyed the Sacramentall bread in the Lords Supper 2. That Church-membership taken at large doth not give right to persons of years to the Lords Supper For then they who are cut off by any excommunication should be admitted they being still parts of the Church of God as Field calls them §. 7. 3. Since excommunication is a withdrawing or rejecting of one from communion hence it follows that as communion is more or lesse so this withdrawing and therefore excommunication is capable of degrees to be more or less And some more notable degree may be denominated by one name and another by another Thus it was among the Jewes the common nature of whose excommunication was a withdrawing from some communion as ours is Many of the learned have described theirs in the three speciall degrees of it as Schindler pentaglot in voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gerrard harm Evang. c. 178. gives a summary account of them out of several Authors The first was truly a separation or withdrawing But the second was more solemnly such Quâ quis solenniter in totius Ecclesiae conspectu exclusus est The word solenniter some such man as Mr. W. would catch and cavill at as he doth p. 18. against such a passage in my papers What saith he is your Suspension such an Apocryphall business that it deserves no solemnity in the managing thereof Unto such inconsiderable flirts I shall not trouble my self nor the Reader with any answer But I insist not in describing wherein the severall sorts of their excommunication did consist there being much difference among the learned in that See Dr. Hammond on 1 Cor. 5. But that there were severall sorts and in those that one was a severer degree of exclusion or separation and withdrawing from then another The four degrees or steps in the censure of excommunication among the Greeks formerly are mentioned by most who have written on this controversie The stantes succumbentes audientes and plorantes But the Gentlemen who oppose us alledge that those were steps in readmission of the excommunicate not steps or degrees in excommunication But though I confess this is an ingenuous answer yet methinks we may rationally inferre the lawfulness of proceeding by steps in excommunication from that supposed lawfulness of admitting severall steps of delivering out of excommunication Sure I am there is as much ground in Scripture and reason too as I apprehend for the former as there is for the later And that conceit of excommunication under the notion of a dismembring and turning out or cutting off from Church-membership being I conceive sufficiently and clearly refelled in the fore-going Section this inference will appear much more evident and convincing But I shall offer here these two considerations for the further confirming of gradual excommunication or putting out of Ecclesiasticall communion 1. If there be nothing in the nature of excommunication it self which is against a graduall procedure in excommunication nor any Scripture prohibition of it and if it be not contrary to the generall Rule of doing all things in the Church orderly and to edification then it is lawfull But the former is true therefore the later also That there is nothing in the nature of excommunication against it hath been shewed in that withdrawing communion which expresseth the nature of all excommunication is capable of degrees That there is no Scripture prohibition hereof is to be reckoned upon till some Scripture prohibition be produced which I could never yet see nor hear so much as pretended by any Nor is it contrary to the Rule of orderly and edifying transaction of affairs in the Church since courses of mildness and gentleness are most likely to edifie when they thwart not Justice and Right as those do not which are not contrary to the Word the Rule of Right and Justice 2. Again if a person may have no right to yea ought to be debarred the Sacrament who yet ought not to be turned out of all that private Christian communion which some excomunication deprives of then there may be degrees of excommunication or putting one out of Ecclesiasticall communion and particularly one degree of abstension or suspension preceding for some time the withdrawing of private Christian communion But the former is true therefore the later The Consequence I suspect not the deniall of the Antecedent stands firmly upon these two pillars viz. 1. That no Christian notoriously under gross and scandalous wickedness hath any right to the Sacrament nor hath the Minister any rightfull commission from the Donor or author of the Covenant and Seals thereof to administer or give the Sacrament unto him As suppose in point of faith a notorious Heretique who denies a fundamentall of the Christian Creed or in point of manners suppose one hath committed whoredome and it is notoriously known both these remaining visibly impenitent are uncapable of having the Lords Supper lawfully given unto them And yet 2. an offender though so notorious as in the forementioned cases ought not forthwith to be rejected and turned out of all that Christian private communion which some excommunication deprives of For the proof of the former of these two propositions I must crave the Readers patience and God willing in the following discourse he shall find it I hope clearly and convincingly confirmed The later of them I know none that deny And there is Scripture-evidence for it The heretick Titus 3.10 is not to be rejected and cast out of all that private Christian communion which some excommunication deprives of till after the first and second admonition which are not to be given together and at one time as all acknowledge but at some distance And a person is not thus to be rejected till obstinate Now obstinacy in wickedness referring to faith or manners cannot be suddenly manifested but requires several admonitions being to be rejected by an offender before he can be declared obstinate §. 8. 4 There are sundry sorts of persons in sundry capacities concerned and exercised in withdrawing from a scandalous brother 1. The Ministers the Stewards of the Mysteries of God 2 The people 3. The whole Church of Officers
to call or encourage the prophane to come to be converted from that their wickednesse although God may work such an effect by the Sacrament even in an heathen if he were though finfully admitted §. 12. All Divines I think have held that in the Sacrament there is an application of comfort to the communicants particularly As the Minister is to give each their portion in due season and so is prudently to hold forth and apply the promises to those he judgeth humbled and capable of having them fitly and sately applyed to them and not to the visibly impenitent in that stare except so as to encourage them to repent that they may be capable of them So in the ministration of the Sacrament comfort is applied to the communicants upon supposition of their being in such a capacity for it really as to the Church they are apparently In short if the delivering the Sacrament to a communicant in this form Christ dyed for thee or the like words be an application of the richest Gospel-promise to him at that instant for him to lay hold upon for his present comfort and is so intended by the ministrator of the Sacrament to him then he is supposed in the judgment of the Church which receives him or in the prudentiall judgement of the Minister where there is no governing Church to involve his particular judgement in theirs that he is one who at present is in a capacity to believe that he hath saving inrerest in Christs body and blood exhibited there unto him sacramentally and signally which they must judge of not by his being a Church-member in the largest sense from which excommunication doth not simply cut him off but by his being visibly to them in the way of actuall obedience to the Gospel he professeth So much for this Argument Before we passe to the next it will not be amisse to take a little repose in the fifth part of the 119 Psalm PSALM 119. Part 5. E. 33 Eternal God teach me thy way Which I shall keep to th' end 34 Endue me with that wit I may Thy Law with whole heart tend 35 Ever me guide in thy Lawes blest For therein I rejoyce 36 Estrange not my heart from thy hests But from vile avarice 37 Engage me not to see vain wo In thy way quicken me 38 Establish now thy word unto Thy servant who fears thee 39 Early prevent my fear'd disgrace For good thy Indgements be 40 Each word of thine I did embrace In just grace quicken me CHAP. VI. §. 1. I Proceed to my fifth and chiefe Argument in the management whereof we shall derive cleere light from the holy Scriptures And it may be thus framed The Lords Supper ought not to be administred to them who do visibly and notoriously want that faith which is necessarily required to be visibly present in them who may be lawfully admitted thereunto But such as are unbeleevers by notorious disobedience to the Gospel do visibly want that faith c. Therefore the Lords Supper ought not to be administred to them The Major is undeniable The Minor I thus confirme Such as visibly want that faith which is necessarily required to be visibly present in the adult who may be lawfully admitted to Baptisme do visibly want that faith which is necessarily required to be visibly present in them who may be lawfully admitted to the Lords Supper But such as are unbeleevers by notorious disobedience to the Gospel do visibly want that faith which is necessarily required to be visibly present in the adult who may be lawfully admitted to Baptisme Therefore unbeleevers by notorious disobedience to the Gospel do visibly want that faith which is necessarily required to be visibly present in them who may be lawfully admitted to the Lords Supper §. 2. The major proposition here is proved by the analogy which divers have shewed betwixt the two Sacraments there is the same Covenant sealed in both and the same benefits conferred at least on the adult in both And if any make any difference herein the advantage is given to the Lords Supper and so our argument is more strong a minori ad majus But I shall not siay on this since the learned and ingenuous Mt. Humphreys the strongest opposer of the suspension our controversie is now about that I have seene hath granted that Adult is eadem est ratio utriusque sacramenti And in his explication of that Rule that it may suit with his own hypotheses the better and explicating himselfe thereupon Rejoynd sect 5. p. 65. he saith You must take the meaning thus There is cadem ratio but not in omnibus It holds in the maine that the same saith which will admit one of age to be baptized will also admit him to the Lords Supper and that is an historical faith only in profession yet as for making that confession though it be needful in Baptisme in admitting them to be Church-members seeing we have Scripture for it yet not at this Supper where we have none For when men are Church members already their very coming is their profession So he §. 3. Here are indeed some passages I am far from consenting to as that Baptisme admits persons to be Church-members when as the great argument for the Baptisme of children goes upon a contrary position viz. That Church-members whom no barring crime is charged upon may be baptized Therefore they are Church-members before Baptisme though in that their Church-membership is solemnly signified and publiquely acknowledged And his concluding it not needful to have this confession made before a person be first admitted to the Lords Supper as it was before persons adult were admitted to Baptisme will not hold unlesse he could shew where persons baptized in infancy were or ought to be in Scripture admitted to the Lords Supper without a personal recognition of the Christian faith But because this is not particularly determined in any Scripture example we must needs argue by analogy to Baptisme about it There is the same reason for requiring a profession of faith from one baptized in infancy before he is first admitted to the Lords Supper as there is for requiring it from the adult for their Baptisme especially such as Augustine and others who were many years Christians in profession before they came to be baptized and the Jewes who were Church-members before their being baptized But to let these things passe here Mr. Humphreys grants the Rule so far as I intend now to make use of it viz. that it holds in the maine that profession of faith historical saith he but most lamentably wrong is the Rule for admission to both Sacraments only in the baptisme of the adult it was verbal profession and at receiving he saith their very coming to receive is their profession Though he maketh the manner of testifying the faith required in adult persons to be baptized different from the manner requisite for testifying the faith required in him who is to be admitted
not so far as I can discerne proved nor encouraged by the context §. 10. When I had dispatched thus much of this argument and had considered several other texts to be annexed proving the same thing as Rom. 6.3 4. Col. 2.11 12 13. Gal. 3.27 c. upon which I should and intended to have argued At this time I say there came to my hands Mr Richard Baxter his late learned and accurate booke containing five Disputations about right to the Sacraments Upon the perusall whereof I perceived he hath so plenteously by many arguments proved the visibility of saving faith to be the title on which only Baptisme and the Lords Supper too may be administred That I shall spare the labour of adding any more here but refer the Reader to receive thankfully that plentifull harvest there prepared for his further satisfaction in this thing I found indeed he also had the texts I have made use of here viz. Act. 2.38 8.35 36. Yet I let them stand still hoping that my improvement and management of them somewhat differing though not dissenting from that Reverend Author may be no prejudice to the cause nor imputed for presumption and arrogance to my selfe I shall now hasten to the third task I undertook in the method above proposed for the evincing that such Christians as are unbeleevers in respect of their notorious disobedience to the Gospel ought not to have the Lords Supper administred to them And that was to annex some Cautions for the further cleering and preventing mistake in this doctrine but this may have a distinct Chapter and because the matter is difficult let us pawse upon it and crave divine assistance in the ejaculations of PSALM 119. the 6th part F. 41 Freely on me thy grace powre out Lord save me by thy Word 42 For so shall I answer each flout My trust is in the Lord. 43 From me ne're take thy Truth for I Hop'd in thy Judgements store 44 Flying all vice I 'le keep truly Thy Law for evermore 45 Freedome is that blest path I tread While I thy precepts seeke 46 Feare not my soul Gods Lawes to spread And of them to Kings speake 47 Fil'd with the love of thy Commands Therein my Joy I 'le choose 48 Ful gladly to them I my hands Lift up and on them muse CHAP. VII §. 1. CAution 1. When I speake of visible saving faith which I explaine to be a visible conformity or obedience to the Gospel I do not refer primarily to the habit of saving faith but the actual exercise thereof And the visible unbeleefe on the contrary refers not to the habit of it but the prevailing present actings and fruits thereof For we cannot judge every one hath not the habit of saving or justifying faith who is at present visibly in a way inconsistent with the exercise thereof But as in the Sacraments especially remission of sins is sealed so those are supposed at present capable of it who are admitted unto them Now as Remission of sins is promised to us to us I say not now considering what is promised to Christ for us only on the condition of faith and repentance so the continuance of remission or justification may be expected only on the same termes According to our continued Petition Math. 6.12 Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive our debiers Which our Saviour reiterates positively v. 14. If ye forgive men their trespasses your Father will forgive you and negatively v. 15. But if yee yee my Disciples though at present justified ones forgive not men their trespasses neither will your heavenly Father forgive you So that judicious grave Divine Musculus saith loc com de remissione p. mihi 26.2 Ut remissio peccatorum sine verâ resipiscentiâ non obtinetur ita obtenta sine constanti illius custodiâ non retinetur and frustrâ remittitur quod post remissionem iteratur §. 2. I confess upon this doctrine here occurres a great Question Whether David whiles actually impenitent under his gross sins was unpardoned and so unjustifyed since all pardon and the continuance thereof is to be expected only on the condition of faith and repentance It must be acknowledged this is a point of great difficulty to speak to it clearly and consistently The obscurity whereof hath occasioned different thoughts in the godly learned for the explication of the same Some have said those gross sins do extinguish grace and are inconsistent with the very habit of faith and so null pardon which they apply to the case of Peter and David till they did repent and so the work of regeneration was begun anew again in them as it was in their first conversion To which they think that passage Psalm 51.10 affords some illustration Create in me a clean heart O God and renew a right spirit within me but although it may be so to their sense and the same omnipotent power of Gods grace is to be put forth for their recovery as was for their first conversion Which two reasons may be some account of the Psalmists expressions yet I conceive it 's plain that the feed of grace is never totally destroyed in them but is immortall although it may as winter-corn lye we know not how long under the clod Others say all the sins of the godly are sins of infirmity the persons committing them being not dead in sin as an unrogenerate man is but onely diseased and wounded and because they are not committed with full consent The habituall resolution and frame of their souls being against those sins which they are sometimes over-born with But this seems contrary to many plain Scriptures Ezek. 18.24 26. Matth. 18.3 Rom. 8.13 1 John 1.6 c. §. 3. Between these two extreams some have laboured to find a middle way more safe I shall also adjoyn my poor endeavours in the following particulars 1. I take it for certain that there is in the godly a seed or habit of sanctifying grace which when they are at the lowest ebb in regard of the fruits and acts of it is never totally extinguished Iohn 10.28 17.20 21. Luke 22.32 And this is an active principle ready to put them on to actuall faith repentance love and obedience In regard whereof the habitual frame of Davids heart was fot God more then for sin even when his sin hindred the actings of grace therefore he never ceased altogether to be a penitent and believer and therefore was never altogether cast out of the state of pardon and justification by those sins though hainous which he did not finally continue in 2. Notwithstanding this their state of justification and pardon continued yet the godly may fall and be under actuall guilt by gross sins whiles not particularly repented of And that not onely such guilt as may oblige them to temporal judgements which often are for the same inflicted on them 1 Cor. 11.29 30 31. 2 Sam. 12.14 But also the present actuall guilt of eternall wrath and damnation For
he may fall into such sins wherein if he finally continue he cannot expect to be saved but is bound to think he shall perish continuing therein Matth. 18.3 and 2. wherein afterward he repenting acknowledgeth God might justly have cast him off in his sin and damned him for it notwithstanding his former interest in Christ Now these accusations of Conscience are true grounded upon the threatnings of the word of God against such as are any while particularly impenitent under such sins Therefore the guilt of conscience charged on him was really on him at that time 3. And he may fall into such sins as the Church may justly retain and bind as it is conceived the incestuous Corinthian was godly before and these are bound in heaven therefore their sins at that present are not remitted in heaven §. 4. 3. How these positions both which seem manifest in Scripture should agree together and not contradict one another is the great difficulty That learned Divine before named most happy in solving of difficulties though he ingenuously confesse himselfe much in the dark here yet inclines to this answer viz. That pardon belongs not onely to actuall repentance and faith but to habituall And so David was actually pardoned on the condition performed of his habituall faith and repentance which kept the interest of Christ most prevailingly in his soul when he was so foiled by actuall wickedness Which he is driven to hold as he saith because he supposeth a godly man may die in gross sins not particularly repented of But then methinks it would follow hereupon that David after his rising again by actuall repentance was pardoned onely as to his sense being really and actually pardoned before even in the committing the crimes on the condition of his habituall faith which yet I think that Mallcus and happy confuter of the Antinomians will not grant 4. Some distinguish of habituall and actuall pardon according to their habituall and actuall faith and repentance And so David should have the former before he was recovered by repentance not the later But this distinction may not be granted because though there be habits of sanctifying grace insused into and inherent in us distinguished from the actuall exercise thereof yet grace justifying and pardoning is wholly without us and is Gods act and therefore I see not how any can be said to have habitual pardon §. 5. I shall now cast in my Mite for explicating this matter by propounding explaining and applying these two distinctions 4. Distinguish betwixt virtuall pardon and the formall application of pardon The terms of the distinction after I had in my thoughts pitched on them I found in Ames Medul lib. 1. c. 27. though he explain them in a sense different from what I intend to signifie thereby Per formalem applicationem saith he remittuntur peccata praeterita sutura autem virtuailter Praeterita in se futura in subjecto vel personâ peccante The fore-praised Mr. Baxter also in his Method for setling Peace of Conscience p. 266. speaks of virtuall justification which David did not lose and actual which he did at present lose by his sin And of which comes to the same effect imperfect and more prefect justification But I mean by virtuall pardon and the formal application of pardon an actual and potential pardon not onely in potentiâ remotâ but proxima As the fruit is virtually contained in the seed so where there is a seed of habituall faith there is a principle certainly through Gods grace promised productive of actual particular repentance for particular gross sins in due time The kingdom of heaven true grace is thus compared to a grain of Mustard seed The virtuall or potentiall pardon is acquitting from sin on such a condition which is inchoatly in the sinner viz. in regard of the seed of it certainly productive of actuall particular repentance for those gross sins not onely as what shall be in respect of Gods Decree which hath no condition to which Ames seems to referre if there were such a pardon or justification in respect of Gods decree to pardon a man might be said to be justified before he is born but especially in that there is that habituall faith and repentance in the sinner which will certainly produce actuall before death And thus David was virtually or potentially inchoatly pardoned as to those gross sins not yet particularly and actually repented of and so he was not out of the state of justification then as out Divines express it But yet he was not formally pardoned till upon actuall repentance he had attained actuall reconciliation with God especially in reference to those particular sins whereby he was disobliged from Gods wrath due to him for the same For this forgivenesse is not to be expected but upon actuall repentance 1 John 1.7 9. Prov. 28.13 And if it were otherwise a godly man could not presume §. 6. 2. Distinguish the way God hath confined us to wherein only we may expect pardon from the way God out of his Royall prerogative may take for pardoning a sinner The way prescribed in the word wherein onely we may expect pardon through Christ is in performance of the Gospel-condition of actuall faith and repentance for all sins in general for more particular gross sins particularly and in the continuance hereof Now God ties us not himselfe If any of the elect should die before actuall particular repentance they having not oppotunity for such repentance as in the case of self-murder upon a violent temptation or the like God may acquit them from the guilt of that particular sin upon their habituall repentance for it But this we cannot expect nor build upon having no Rule for it that God will do so though we cannot say he never will Besides we know not what actuall repentance God may give to such in the instant before death such secret things belong not to us And therefore as we cannot judge others as to this so neither may we vary from the Rule of actuall faith and repentance in order to our expecting the obtaining and continuance of pardon and justification unto life and salvation The Reader will perhaps say To what purpose hath this perplexed question about the state of a Christian under some notorious sins been here spoken of I answer Because it is as I suppose much conducing to the clearing of the caution we have in hand that it is not the visibility or probable appearance of habitual faith primarily that is requited which should authorize the Church or Ministers to admit a person to the Sacraments but a visible actuall faith shewed probably in a present conformity and obedience to the Gospel For since habitual faith repentance cannot according to the rule we must expect to be ordered by entitle a person to actuall pardon or the formal application of pardon it followes that that habitual faith isnot enquired for primarily in order to admission to the Sacraments which are instituted to seal
appeare to be of a right faith and doctrinally true beleevers And againe saith he p. 61. By our administration to beleevers is meant such beleevers as we may have a certainty that they are beleevers Now if we must know them to be beleevers by hearing them say the Creed and testifying their beleefe of every Article therein before we can have a certainty they are beleevers capable of admission to the Supper then they must give an understanding visible account of their faith in order to their admission Their having been baptized in infancy is no demonstration and less then demonstration will not serve for the infallible certainty Mr. W. requires of their personall doctrinal faith this doctrinal faith they cannot be expected to have without instruction preceding and the meanes of instruction afforded to them is no proof of their proficiency therefore according to Mr. W. his own concessions they must give an account of their proficiency under the meanes of instruction they have had for the attaining this indispensably necessary doctrinal faith which we must saith he have an infallible certainty of before we administer unto them 4. The same Reason which will justifie the requiring a Parents renewing his profession of faith and renouncing what is contrary thereunto when he presents his childe to baptisme will as effectually prove that he should personally professe the faith before he was admitted to the Lords Supper And therefore whereas an ancient Divine in this Country as I am informed at the celebration of a Baptisme having asked the Parent the usuall Questions then offered to his Brethren Why that parent might not be admitted to the Lords Supper without any further Examination before Minister or Eldership since he had now made an open profession of his faith at the baptisme of his child It may be answered 1. That if he please to give a reason to warrant his demanding that profession from the Parent before the infant should be baptized the same will shew what he desired He may try at his leasure to give a Reason for the one which will not as effectually reach the other 2. Yea much more strong will it be in the latter than former case In his datum than quaesitum supposing the parent had been upon a personall owning the Covenant engagements admitted before that time to the Lords Supper 3. I should readily grant if this parent have not or not upon a personal confession of the faith been admitted to the Lords Supper before that this profession he was occasioned to make at the baptisme of his infant may so far as it goes serve without renewing of it at his admission to the Lords Supper But then it should be considered whether the answering in that forme I beleeve I renounce for sake c. may be reasonably judged an understanding owning of the Covenant where it appeares not by previous conference with him or a present more full explication of himselfe or some other probable way that he doth understand what he answers unto 4. Lastly I answer That the parent who is to be admitted to the Lords Supper ought not only understandingly to own the Covenant and baptisme as one seale thereof which he makes profession of at the baptisme of his infant but also particularly the ordinance of the Lords Supper the signification of the sacramental elements and actions therein and the end of celebrating the same that he may be in a visible capacity of discerning the Lords body And therefore there is manifest reason why he should make a further profession supposing he hath not done it before for his own admission to the Communion then was required from him at the admission of his Infant to baptisme And so much in answer to this proposall of the Minister aforesaid of which I desire his candid acceptance Some other passages mentioned by him at the same time I neglect as savouring of calumny and passion The tide may turne and the brooke therewith I grudge him not the liberty of Retract on but then it were seemly to be without detraction from others who still own the opinion he was lately most zealous for I now proceed 3 It makes no alteration as to the matter in hand whether this understanding profession of the faith be immediately before a persons first admission to the Sacrament or a longer time before so that the thing be done And therefore where Confirmation was in use and seriously managed that might serve this purpose sufficiently according to the direction of the Common prayer book before recited Ch 4. § 3. 4 If persons have been unduely admitted to the Lords Supper without making this understanding profession of the Christian faith before that excuseth them not from being now called to make it in order to their present admission this will stand good till it can be evinced that a neglect excuseth from duty that that must never be done which hath been sinfully left undone and that because of that irregular omission although as fit an opportunity is againe afforded for the doing of it as that was which formerly was not taken hold of as it should have been for the same And indeed as the Provincial Synod of London in their Vindication hath observed The great Odium cast upon the Presbyterial way is occasioned by the shameful neglect formerly of the Rules then appointed for Examination of all before they should have been admitted to the Lords Table And now the Reformation endeavoured in this thing is not so much for the amending the Rule which before was prescribed as in calling people up to a stricter observation of the same Rule for matter and substance 5 It hath bin already shewed that the Presbyterian Government which is that confirmed by the Parliament after advice had with the Assembly of Divines not what some Presbyterians may hold doth not require all persons now should be againe examined who have formerly upon the due profession of their faith been admitted to the Sacrament But it forbidding the ignorant to be admitted only inferres that such as hitherto have not understandingly owned the Covenant of grace should now be called to do it if they would partake of the Sacrament And therefore where any have formerly performed that in substance which is now required from them who are to be first admitted to the Supper and can make it appear there is no necessity according to Presbyterian principles for their rene wall of it as to their present communicating 6 This profession must be made before sufficient and comperent witnesses else it cannot be a satisfactory profession But who those must be is a consideration of another nature For this may vary according to the different circumstances of persons times and places and the judgement of the Church thereupon or of those who are most eminently concerned in the management of such things pertaining to the prudential order thereof so that the end be attained for the good of the persons admitted and the satisfaction and edification
though suspended or excommunicate §. 4. I know no difficulty here but that concerning receiving their children to baptism But that I find not mentioned by Mr W. And if their children should be debarred baptism that is no argument against debarring them the Lords Supper It s no good reason that nothing should be done in a business because all is not done which some think and suppose rightly should be done So far we are satisfied that the parents being so notoriously wicked as aforesaid should be debarred the Lords Table Whether also their children must be debarred baptism is another thing to be enquired into This Controversie is weighty and large and I shall not presume to designe a just discussion of it here yet may I not wholly omit it Concerning the baptizing of the children of both parents notoriously ungodly and suspended or excommunicate I would briefly hint these few things 1. Some solve the difficulty by saying We receive their children to baptism on other accounts than on their right from their immediate parents as Mr Drake answered Mr Humphreys on this point 2. But by the immediate though notoriously ungodly suspended or excommunicate parent I humbly conceive a right is conveighed for the baprism of his infant Supposing that the parent desire it otherwise none can meddle with the dedicating of his Infant which is parentum juris at the parents disposal For §. 5. 1. All Pedobaptists use this Argument Church-members may be baptized Some children are Church-members Ergo. And doubtless they understand their Major proposition here of Church-members not sinfully debarring themselves For a son of a believer who hath not been baptized in infancy though he be a Church-member may when he is adult by his scandalous life hinder himselfe of receiving baprism as well as one baptized may of the Lords Supper Now the child of a notoriously ungodly and suspended or excommunicated parent is a Church-member and doth not sinfully hinder or put a bar to his own baptism That he is a Church-member is proved If the parent be a Church-member then so is the infant this consequence I think none I have to deal with will deny But that he is a Church-member still hath been proved above chap. 3. § 6. That this child doth not put a bar to his own baptism I need not prove Upon this ground I add 2. The child is not to be punished for the fathers sin which yet he were if he should not be baptized 1. Admit the parent be visibly a believer when his child is born or rather when the child is begotten according to 1 Cor. 7.14 which is said to describe the childs birth-priviledge as it is called though it seems rather to be a generation-priviledge and that he delay the baptizing his child a month perhaps longer and in the mean time he for some notorious wickednesse is suspended or excommunicated Certainly his infant had a right to baptism at least coram Ecclesia and supposing the parent to have true grace coram Deo too after it was born and therefore it cannot be said that to deny it baptisme is no punishment as not depriving it of any right it ever had and therefore the denying it baptisme now is to cut it off from what it had and lost not by its own default 2. It will not I think be denied that it is a priviledge and great mercy which the gracious providence of God hath disposed unto this infant that it hath or had right to baptisme If it were onely the priviledge of the parent that he might have his child baptized it were more imaginable how his child might be debarred upon his forfeiture But since it is a priviledge to the child it cannot be debarred but it must be punished as well as its parent and that for its parents personall miscarriage He himselfe indeed may keep it from baptisme but as in that he sins and doth it wrong so should they who refuse to do their office for the baptizing of it upon the parents defire §. 6. 3. It is not nothing that the Jewish children were to be circumcised the eighth day although the parents by legall or moral uncleanness might be debarred the Passeover or excommunicated which it should seeme would not have been if the censure upon the parents had reached any further then to the suspension of him from some personal priviledges whereby he was as an heathen in some respects and did not extend to make his child as an heathen in any respect particularly that it should be debarr'd circumcision as the child of an heathen should though the parent were debarr'd the Passcover and so dealt with in that respect as though he had been an Heathen 4. He may be admitted to Baptisme who is holy by consecration and being rightly devoted to Christs service doth no way reject the same But such is the condition of the child of a notoriously scandalous Christian yea excommunicated Ergo he may be admitted to Baptisme Of the first there is no question I thinke The latter proposition is cleere in both its parts 1. This child is holy by consecration and being rightly devoted to God For when the parent entred or seemed to enter Covenant with God as therein God tendered himselfe his God and the God of his or his seed So his restipulation was answerable thereunto that he and his his seed should be the Lords people Whether this parent was sincere in this covenanting or no he and his are engaged thereby and so his seed is a seed holy by consceration and being rightly devoted to God and the service of Christ and as he himselfe is to be accounted really justified or dealt with as such till he notoriously contradict his professed engagements to Christs service Deut. 26.17 so also is his seed which in devoting himselfe he also devoted to God Deut. 29.11 12. to be treated as holy ones and as justified ones are to be dealt with till that they by notorious disobedience contradict the engagements which lye on them And thus the children which some wicked Jewes offered to Idols God claimes as his in a special and peculiar sense as having been devoted to him and his service Ezek. 16.20 27. 23.27 §. 7. 5. Although the learned and worthy Mr. Baxter in his third disputation about Right to the Sacraments asserts and copiously labours to defend that the Infants of notoriously ungodly parents have no right to Baptisme In answering of whom this controversie might have its just disquisition which it cannot be expected I should undertake yet in that same disputation p. 264 265. he most reasonably asserts That all God requireth in the free universal Covenant of grace to our participation of his benefits is our consent And children do consent by those whose they are For they that owe them or whose they are have the disposall of them and so of their wills interpretatively and may among men make any Covenant for them which is for their good at least
and oblige them to a performance of conditions Now upon this ground I would propose it to consideration whether a notoriously ungodly parent yea excommunicate who in words professeth assent to the Christian faith and knows what the Christian faith is as to the fundamentalls of it may not justly and fairly be presumed by the Church and Minister heartily to consent to dedicate his child to God in Gods way although he himselfe is so bewitched with and enslaved to his lusts that he doth not consent as it appeares by his contradictory deeds to give up himselfe to God in his way For my part I doe verily thinke many a drunkard would have his child sober and temperate and many a wanton desires his child may be chast c. And in general many a wicked parent appears cordially to rejoyce in the towardliness and godlinesse of his children c. And then according to the foresaid position of this accurate and pious Author the child of such a wicked parent may be admitted to enter and therefore to seale his entrance into Covenant with God in Baptisme he consenting understandingly for him upon Gospel termes whose he is and in whose will the childes will is interpretatively involved Yet because the scandalousnes of the said parent gives just occasion to the Church of suspition feare and jealousie least he should alter his will and desire now signified to have his child truly a Christian and godly and so faile in using necessary meanes for his childes instruction during its non-age in the Christian faith It s but equitable the Church should demand sureties for the same according to Ames his resolution of the case de conscientiâ lib. 4. qu. 1. Resp 8. Excommunicatorum contumacium liberi non expedit baptizari nisi sponsorum idoncoâ—um interventu I must beg the Readers pardon for this excursion which I fell into almost unawares and having engaged in it of some I shall have cause to crave their excuse for saying so much and of others for saying no more the point indeed deserveth a larger disquisition But mine apology to the former shall be that Mr. W. his exception I was answering did in the latitude of it comprehend this and therefore I would not wholly pass it by and to the latter that his words do not cleerly import he had any special reference to this point and therefore I thought the less might serve to note concerning it in my Reply unto him PSALM 119. part 19. T. 145 This whole heart cryd to thee Lord heare Thy statutes I 'le fulfill 146 To thee I cal'd save me most deare Thine hests I shall keep still 147 The day-break my cryes do prevent Trusting thy word I waite 148 The night too mine eyes are intent Thy truth to meditate 149 To my voice heark in kindnesse true Thy Judgements quicken mee 150 They draw nigh who mischeife pursue Far from thy Lawes they bee 151 Thou Lord art neere and very true Are thy Commandments sure 152 Thine hests thou hast of old I knew Founded aye to endure CHAP. XX. §. 1. I Shall now proceed to what remaines 3 In the next place Mr. W. answers my forementioned Reason to this purpose p. 110 111. If the man supposed in the case comes and desires to communicate and that earnestly this Mr. W. saith is rightly affirmed by mine Antagonists to be a Testimony of his seriousnesse which we may not upon his profession thereof refuse to beleeve And this Mr. W. proves in these words For Sir if you grant the case viz. that he desires to communicate and that earnestly then shew a Reason if you can why all godly minded Christians should not in charity believe upon his profession hereof that this is to us in foro externo a credible testimony of his seriousness Nay you adde moreover that who makes a credible serious profession of his faith and willingness to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ the Church ought not to excommunicate Nay you adde doubtlesse the Church ought not And we adde that doubtlesse the Church ought not to deny such an one the Lords Supper or suspend him from it What a schisme will do we know not c. The Reader may be pleased to beare in memory that after I had evinced that a man baptized at yeares and not fully excommunicate might be debarred the Sacrament if at the time when he tenders himselfe to be admitted when the time of celebration begins to draw neere he in words renounce Christ or an essential of Christianity which is not that I finde denied by Mr. W. In the procedure of my argument I added that if such word rejecting of Christ as before-said may debar the person aforesaid then some deed-rejecting of Christ may also Because that by some deeds of wickednesse there is as credibly a signification of a mans rejecting Christ as in words And this was proved as by other arguings so by this under our hand at present viz. If some deeds do not as credibly signifie a persons rejecting of Christ as words might doe then none could be excommunicated for sinfull deeds whiles they renounce not Christ in words but in words profess their earnest desire to be admitted to the Sacrament This consequence is valid at least ad hominem because mine Antagonists intimate that he who verbally professeth his desire to receive must be by us accounted a serious professor of faith what ever his works are And I averre that no visibly serious professor of faith is to be excoÌ„municated For then one in the way of a visible exercise of faith and true repentance should be excommunicated which none sure will affirme And this Consequence I cannot see that Mr. W. sticks at But now whereas I should assume But some may be excommunicated for sinfull deeds notwithstanding that in words they renounce not Christ but verbally professe their carnest desire to be admitted to the Sacrament This I thinke Mr. W. denies I am not certaine look over his words thy selfe Reader and use thine owne judgement to guess what he drives at But this I am certaine of either he denies this or he saith nothing of a contradictory tendency to my argumentation which here he pretends to enervate And if he do deny the foresaid Assumption as I conceive his words import taken together It may be imputed to his hast that he should hold what is so manifestly false viz. That none may be excommunicated for sinfull deeds though never so hainous and notorious if he renounce not Christ in words and professe verbally his earnest desire to communicate §. 2. But because M. W. bids me shew a Reason if I can for the contrary I must prove that the Sun shines at noone day And 1. If this his assertion be true then not professing earnest desire to communicate in the only crime sufficient to cause excommunication But a man may be excommunicated for other wickedness without respect to this 1 Cor. 5.11 A whore monger or drunkard